Elements of Meaning in Gesture
Gesture Studies (GS) Gesture Studies aims to publish book-length publications on all a...
206 downloads
1754 Views
3MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Elements of Meaning in Gesture
Gesture Studies (GS) Gesture Studies aims to publish book-length publications on all aspects of gesture. These include, for instance, the relationship between gesture and speech; the role gesture may play in social interaction; gesture and cognition; the development of gesture in children; the processes by which spontaneously created gestures may become transformed into codified forms; the relationship between gesture and sign; biological studies of gesture, including the place of gesture in language evolution; and gesture in human-machine interaction. Volumes in this peer-reviewed series may be collected volumes, monographs, or reference books, in the English language. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/gs
Editor Adam Kendon
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Volume 5 Elements of Meaning in Gesture by Geneviève Calbris
Elements of Meaning in Gesture Geneviève Calbris Translated by Mary M. Copple
John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdamâ•›/â•›Philadelphia
8
TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Calbris, Geneviève. Elements of meaning in gesture / Geneviève Calbris. p. cm. (Gesture Studies, issn 1874-6829 ; v. 5) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Gesture. 2. Semiotics. 3. Psycholinguistics. 4. Thought and thinking. 5. Speech. I. Title. P117.C25â•…â•… 2011 302.2’22--dc23 isbn 978 90 272 2847 5 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 8517 1 (Eb)
2011018544
© 2011 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
Table of contents Foreword Acknowledgements Introduction A guide to conventions used in the bookâ•… 8 chapter 1 The gestural sign and related key concepts 1. The gestural sign drawn from physical experienceâ•… 10 1.1 Experience of the physical worldâ•… 10 1.2 Representation of the physical worldâ•… 13 2. The gestural sign in discourseâ•… 17 2.1 Identifying gestural unitsâ•… 17 2.2 Characteristics of the gestural sign demonstrated by examples of Ring gesturesâ•… 19 2.2.1 A cultural signâ•… 19 2.2.2 A contextual signâ•… 20 2.2.2.1 The kinesic contextâ•… 21 2.2.2.2 The verbal contextâ•… 21 2.2.3 An analogical signâ•… 22 2.2.4 An isomorphic analogical signâ•… 23 2.3 The symbolic relations between gestures and notionsâ•… 23 2.3.1 Several gestures represent one notion: Variationâ•… 25 2.3.1.1 Gesture variants and cumulative variantsâ•… 25 2.3.2 One gesture represents several notions: Polysemy and polysignâ•… 25 2.3.2.1 The polysemous gestureâ•… 26 2.3.2.2 The polysign gestureâ•… 28 2.3.2.3 The polysemous polysign gestureâ•… 29 2.4 Interaction between the phenomena of variation and polysemyâ•… 30 2.4.1 How to find the analogical linkâ•… 31 2.4.2 Gestural sequencingâ•… 32
xv xix 1
9
 Elements of meaning in gesture
part i. the functions of gesture in relation to speech chapter 2 The demarcative function of gesture 37 1. Multimodal communicationâ•… 37 1.1 Nonverbal aspects of multimodal communicationâ•… 39 1.2 The multifunctionality of each communication channelâ•… 42 2. The demarcative function of gesture in association with the voiceâ•… 43 2.1 Hierarchic segmentation of discourseâ•… 43 2.1.1 Kinesic segmentation of discourse into ideational unitsâ•… 44 2.1.2 Kinesic segmentation of ideational units into rhythmic-semantic groupsâ•… 46 2.1.3 Kinesic segmentation of rhythmic-semantic groups into wordsâ•… 47 2.2 Recurrence in segmentation of discourseâ•… 49 2.2.1 Prosodic recurrenceâ•… 49 2.2.2 Kinesic recurrenceâ•… 50 2.2.3 Discourse choreographyâ•… 51 2.2.4 Semantic choreographyâ•… 52 2.2.5 Segmentation of gestural units related to the referential functionâ•… 53 chapter 3 Identifying the referential function of gesture 1. Some precepts in visual representationâ•… 58 1.1 The relation precedes the elements to be relatedâ•… 59 1.1.1 Relation of transfer or of substitutionâ•… 59 1.1.2 Temporal relationâ•… 60 1.1.3 Relation between numbered valuesâ•… 61 1.2 Designation precedes qualificationâ•… 61 2. The importance of context for identifying the meaning of a gestureâ•… 63 2.1 The vocal contextâ•… 63 2.2 The simultaneous and the successive kinesic contextsâ•… 63 3. Example of analysisâ•… 65 4. The representational gesture is not a word illustratorâ•… 69
57
part ii. the systematic organization of gestural signs chapter 4 Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 1. The context indicates the relevant body partâ•… 77 2. Localization: Body-focused gesturesâ•… 78
75
Table of contents 
3. M ovement: Gestures in spaceâ•… 81 3.1 Form of movementâ•… 81 3.1.1 Straight-line gestures and their secondary componentsâ•… 81 3.1.1.1 Directional axes of movement in relation to the planar position and orientation of the body partâ•… 81 3.1.1.2 The body part and the plane in which it is positionedâ•… 85 3.1.1.3 Repeated movementâ•… 86 3.1.1.4 Symmetryâ•… 87 3.1.2 Curved gestures and their secondary componentsâ•… 87 3.1.2.1 Clockwise versus anticlockwise movementâ•… 88 3.2 Direction of movementâ•… 89 4. Body part: Gestures in spaceâ•… 89 4.1 Form of the body part: Examples of hand configurationsâ•… 90 4.2 Direction of the body part: Orientationâ•… 92 5. Head gesturesâ•… 93 5.1 Rotational movement of the head in three planesâ•… 93 5.1.1 Movement in the sagittal planeâ•… 94 5.1.2 Movement in the horizontal planeâ•… 95 5.1.3 Movement in the frontal planeâ•… 96 5.2 A selection of examples: Head tiltâ•… 96 chapter 5 Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 1. About codingâ•… 101 2. Description of the method of analysisâ•… 103 2.1 Code gestural componentsâ•… 104 2.1.1 Configurationâ•… 104 2.1.2 Configuration and planeâ•… 106 2.1.3 Orientationâ•… 107 2.1.4 Straight-line movementâ•… 107 2.1.5 Laterality/symmetryâ•… 108 2.1.6 Localizationâ•… 108 2.1.7 Eye gazeâ•… 108 2.1.8 Example of codingâ•… 109 2.2 Extract samples sorted by gestural componentsâ•… 110 2.2.1 Same movement, different gestures: Sample 1 (40–65)â•… 112 2.2.2 Same configuration, different gestures: Sample 2 (53–60, 66–95)â•… 113
101
 Elements of meaning in gesture
2.3 D etermine the gestural referentâ•… 115 2.3.1 Primary semantic subdivision within Sample 2â•… 115 2.3.2 Secondary semantic subdivision within Sample 2â•… 116 2.4 Deduce the potential analogical link(s) between physical and semantic elementsâ•… 118 2.4.1 Different analogical links in the Frame configuration in Sample 2â•… 119 2.4.2 The same analogical link in the different gestures in Sample 1â•… 120 2.4.2.1 Decisionâ•… 121 2.4.2.2 Categorical characterâ•… 122 2.5 Validate the analogical linkâ•… 123 part iii. the symbolic relations between gestures and notions chapter 6 Different gestures represent one notion: Variation 1. Gesture variants of timeâ•… 128 1.1 Localizationâ•… 129 1.1.1 Localization with respect to the present momentâ•… 129 1.1.1.1 Past and Future expressed by a head movement in opposite directionsâ•… 130 1.1.1.2 Past and Future expressed by a hand movement in opposite directionsâ•… 130 1.1.2 Localization with respect to a given momentâ•… 132 1.2 Durationâ•… 135 1.2.1 The measurement of timeâ•… 135 1.2.2 The course of timeâ•… 137 1.2.2.1â•… Repetitionâ•… 138 1.2.2.2â•… Regressive unfoldingâ•… 139 1.3 Gestural expression of time in different culturesâ•… 142 2. Gesture variants obtained by substituting a gestural componentâ•… 144 2.1 Overview of component substitutionsâ•… 145 2.2 Stylistic variantsâ•… 148 2.3 Semantic variantsâ•… 149 2.3.1 Change of body partâ•… 149 2.3.2 Change of movement: from a straight to a curved lineâ•… 149 3. The semantic contribution of the substituteâ•… 154 3.1 The specific character of the thumbâ•… 154 3.2 Comparative use of the thumb and the index fingerâ•… 156 3.2.1 Localizationâ•… 157
127
Table of contents 
3.2.2 (Self-)Designationâ•… 157 3.2.3 One: Priority/Uniquenessâ•… 158 3.2.4 Stop: request to stop/rectifying objectionâ•… 158 3.2.5 Contactâ•… 158 4. The choice of variantâ•… 158 5. Isolating the semantic features of a notion via its gesture variantsâ•… 160 chapter 7 One gesture represents different notions: Polysemy and Polysign 163 1. The polysemous gesture and its explanationsâ•… 164 1.1 An analogical link subject to semantic derivationâ•… 164 1.1.1 Example: Palm(s) Forwards signifying (self-protective) oppositionâ•… 164 1.1.1.1 Confirmation of the analogical link: Gradational oppositionâ•… 167 1.1.2 Example: The fist punch signifying aggressionâ•… 170 1.1.2.1 Confirmation of the analogical link: an underlying aggression in each caseâ•… 172 1.1.3 A contradictory semantic derivation: From negative to positiveâ•… 173 1.1.3.1 Lateral head shakeâ•… 173 1.1.3.2 Palm forwardsâ•… 175 1.2 The presence of several analogical links: Plural motivationâ•… 178 1.2.1 Example: The transverse movement of the Level Handâ•… 178 2. The polysign gestureâ•… 183 2.1 A bireferential gestureâ•… 184 2.2 A bireferential gestural componentâ•… 186 2.3 A multireferential gestureâ•… 188 2.4 The case of the ‘complex’ gestureâ•… 190 3. The polysemous polysign gestureâ•… 191 chapter 8 The analogical links between gestures and notions 1. The semantics of physical refusalâ•… 198 1.1 Active refusalâ•… 199 1.1.1 Rejecting an object in front of oneselfâ•… 199 1.1.2 Removing an object from oneselfâ•… 202 1.2 Passive refusalâ•… 203 1.2.1 The reflexes of rejectionâ•… 203 1.2.1.1 Vomit reflexâ•… 203 1.2.1.2 Expulsion of gasâ•… 204
197

Elements of meaning in gesture
1.2.2 The reflexes of self-protectionâ•… 206 1.2.3 The reflex of evasionâ•… 211 1.2.4 The reflex of recoilingâ•… 213 1.2.5 Wearinessâ•… 214 1.3 Semantic derivation in the expression of refusalâ•… 215 2. Identifying an analogical linkâ•… 217 2.1 Elucidating a polysemy by comparing gesture variantsâ•… 217 2.1.1 The projection of the fistâ•… 218 2.2 The semantic nuancing of a variant due to the gesture’s polysemyâ•… 220 2.2.1 Concrete designationâ•… 220 2.2.2 Restrictionâ•… 222 2.3 The correspondence between the analogical link and a variant’s use: The case of negationâ•… 224 3. Analogical links and their symbolic associationsâ•… 228 3.1 Is the polysemous gesture as a polysign?â•… 228 3.1.1 Determining the analogical link for each notionâ•… 228 3.1.2 Comparing the other variants that express each notionâ•… 228 3.1.2.1 The notion of stop-refusal and all its gestural and semantic variantsâ•… 228 3.1.2.2 The notion of cutting and all its gestural and semantic variantsâ•… 230 3.1.3 Nuance contributed by the polysemous gesture to each notionâ•… 232 3.2 The symbolic mechanismâ•… 235 3.2.1 A facial-gestural ensemble contains one or several analogical linksâ•… 235 3.2.1.1 One linkâ•… 235 3.2.1.2 Several linksâ•… 235 3.2.2 A gesture contains one or several analogical linksâ•… 236 3.2.2.1 One linkâ•… 236 3.2.2.2 Several linksâ•… 237 3.2.3 A gestural component contains one or several analogical linksâ•… 237 3.2.3.1 One linkâ•… 237 3.2.3.2 Several linksâ•… 237 3.2.4 Connective interplay between analogical linksâ•… 238 3.2.4.1 The complex gestureâ•… 238 3.2.5 The polysemous gesture as a polysignâ•… 239 3.2.6 The polysemous polysign gestureâ•… 240
Table of contents 
part iv. the gestural sign in utterance chapter 9 The gestural sign and speech 1. Relations between gestural and verbal unitsâ•… 246 1.1 Temporal relations between semantic unitsâ•… 246 1.2 Semantic relations between temporal unitsâ•… 250 2. A co-verbal signâ•… 250 2.1 Simultaneous gestural commentaryâ•… 250 2.1.1 Attitude to the object of the utteranceâ•… 251 2.1.2 Attitude to the interlocutorâ•… 251 2.1.3 Commentary on the object of the utteranceâ•… 252 2.2 Simultaneous complementary informationâ•… 252 2.3 Simultaneous pedagogical explanationâ•… 253 2.4 The simultaneous disambiguation of one sign by the otherâ•… 254 3. A pre-verbal signâ•… 256 3.1 The gesture-titleâ•… 257 3.2 An aid to verbalizationâ•… 258 3.3 Interplay between tension and relaxation in communicating informationâ•… 263 3.4 Hypotheses on gesture anticipating speechâ•… 267 4. The interactive construction of meaning by the two types of signâ•… 269 5. An example of the relations between gesture and speechâ•… 273 5.1 Segmentation of the continuum into gestural-verbal temporal unitsâ•… 274 5.2 Identification of the co-speech gestural referentâ•… 276 5.3 The co-speech gestural referent anticipates the verbal referentâ•… 277 6. The contribution of a semiotic analysisâ•… 280 chapter 10 Gesture, thought and speech 1. Gesture and thoughtâ•… 287 1.1 Ideational gestureâ•… 287 1.1.1 Gestural symbolization of the concreteâ•… 288 1.1.2 Gestural concretization of the abstractâ•… 290 1.1.2.1 The reconcretization of the figurative senses of words and locutionsâ•… 290 1.1.2.2 The gestural concretization of literal senseâ•… 291 1.2 Gesture, the mental image’s witnessâ•… 293
245
287
 Elements of meaning in gesture
1.3 Th e gestural representation of the thought to be put into words╅ 295 1.3.1 A case of spatialized reasoning╅ 303 1.3.1.1 The gesture is a synthetic representation of the thought╅ 307 1.3.1.2 The gesture is an anticipatory synthesis╅ 308 1.3.1.3 The gesture is an anticipatory and a complementary synthesis of the �utterance╅ 309 1.3.1.4 The stylistic effect created by the gesture is part of the expression╅ 310 1.4 A frequently occurring gesture reveals the unconscious╅ 312 1.4.1 The Frame configuration╅ 312 1.4.2 The differentiated use of the right hand and the left hand╅ 313 1.4.2.1 The Left in politics╅ 314 1.4.2.2 Me╅ 314 1.4.2.3 Me/the Left: split personality╅ 315 1.4.2.4 Otherness╅ 316 2. The symbolic extracted from the physical╅ 317 2.1 From the reflex or the symptom to the gestural sign╅ 317 2.1.1 The reflexes of self-protection╅ 317 2.1.2 The reflex of evasion╅ 318 2.1.3 The reflex of recoiling╅ 318 2.2 From the act to the gestural sign╅ 319 2.2.1 The representation of acts of cutting ╅ 320 2.2.2 The representation of the schema of cutting╅ 321 2.2.2.1 Separation╅ 322 2.2.2.2 Stopping a process╅ 323 2.2.2.3 Separation and stopping╅ 324 2.3 From percept to concept╅ 327 2.3.1 From the visual field to the notion of totality╅ 327 2.3.1.1 The analogical link of the sign of totality╅ 328 2.3.1.2 Complete totality versus united totality╅ 328 2.3.1.3 Semantic extension of the sign of totality╅ 328 2.3.1.4 Complementary contribution of the sign of totality within a polysemous gesture╅ 329 2.3.2 From opening to explaining╅ 331 2.3.2.1 Opening the Frame╅ 331 2.3.2.2 Opening Oblique Palms╅ 334 2.3.2.3 Opening the Pyramid╅ 335 2.3.2.4 Opening the Ring╅ 336 2.3.2.5 Opening the Fist╅ 337
Table of contents 
Conclusion
343
References
355
Appendix A
363
Appendix B
364
Postscript: A semiotic and linguistic perspective on gestures
367
Person index
369
Subject index
371
Video clips of numerous examples in this volume can be found online, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/gs.5.video This logo marks the availability of a video clip of an example.
Foreword When people engage in utterance, in whatever setting this may be, much more than the movements and efforts required to produce audible speech is involved. Always, movements of many parts of the body are mobilised: there are movements of the head, patterns of facial expression, variations in how the eyes are being used, postural and bodily orientational changes and also, not infrequently, more or less conspicuous movements of the hands and arms. All these movements are orchestrated and are typically seen as integral to what is involved in producing the utterance, whatever this may be. ‘Utterance’, thus, is a polymodal activity. The movements of the hands and arms in particular, generally referred to as ‘gestures’, are usually regarded as expressing something that is part of the meaning the speaker is conveying. In recent years an increasing amount of interest has been shown in gesture and in how this might relate to the processes of utterance production. It is now generally recognised that such gesturing is an integral part of the process of speaking and much attention is directed to what these movements express, how this expression is related to what is expressed in words, as well as to what role, if any, this gestural activity may play in how the speaker may be understood by others and how it may contribute to the processes by which a speaker arrives at whatever it is that he is deemed to be saying. Despite the seeming modernity of this interest in gesture, it should not be forgotten that these kinds of actions have been recognised as a component of speaking for a very long time. In late Roman Antiquity, when the art of public oratory received much consideration, the management of the body and, especially, how the hands were to be employed in giving a speech, was the focus of much interest, at least as we can gather from writings by Cicero, the famous treatise of Quintilian and the anonymous treatise known as Rhetorica ad Herrenium. In these writings we find specific doctrine about the nature and role of gestures and how they contribute to the presentation of a speech. Later, from the seventeenth century onwards, after interest in the Roman teaching on rhetoric revived, these aspects of a speaker’s action were extensively studied and discussed. There developed, indeed, a veritable art of gesture and a good deal was written about the kinds of bodily expressions that should be used and what they signified. As we move into the nineteenth century, the focus of interest in bodily expression shifted and eventually declined. Darwin’s work of 1871 on The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, especially, contributed to a change in how human bodily expression was viewed. It came to be seen as something left over from our animal natures,
 Elements of meaning in gesture
and, as such, it lost the value it was previously accorded. It was no longer regarded as being linked to language and it ceased to attract serious interest as a form of eloquence. Later, during the first part of the twentieth century, with the rise of psychology, especially of dynamic psychology, interest in bodily expression revived, but now this was from the point of view of what it might reveal about the dynamics of personality, the presence or absence of self-control, levels of emotionality, and similar matters. The possibility that the visible bodily movements of gesture might also be vehicles for the expression of thought, that these movements might play a role in the representation of ideas, was not given serious or systematic consideration. Yet it is just this aspect of the significance of gesturing that today attracts the most attention. Somewhere towards the end of the seventh decade of the twentieth century, a number of observers began to suggest that speakers, in their gestures, might actually be providing formulations of their ideas. It was pointed out that these movements, conjoined as they so very often are with speaking, showed a complex semantic relationship with the spoken word, indicating that for a full appreciation of a speaker’s meaning these movements had to be taken into account. Early hints of the idea that gesture could be a vehicle for the expression of thought can be found in the work of David Efron. Writing in 1940, Efron was one of the first to attend to how gestural movements of the hands pattern with associated speech. He noted, for instance, how speakers might use their hands to diagram their ideas and to give graphic representations to aspects of the structure of their thoughts. However, this aspect of gesture did not really begin to be studied until some thirty years later. This may be because it was only then that the idea that cognitive processes were exclusively dependent upon verbal language began to be challenged. For example, Rudolf Arnheim, in his Visual Thinking (1969), argued that processes of thinking could not be separated from perception. He maintained that thinking as much involved the development and management of visual images as it did verbal language. Indeed, as he made clear, some types of thinking are carried out wholly in terms of visual images. He provided a number of demonstrations showing how highly abstract concepts could be readily and spontaneously expressed in drawing. He suggested that many descriptive gestures are similar in that they can sketch out visual patterns and movements that are like diagrams or animations that represent abstract ideas. He proposed, thus, that gestures could be a form of visual metaphor. Arnheim’s interests were in the graphic arts, however, and he did not undertake any studies of gesture himself. The study of gesture as a form of intellectual expression was to begin somewhat later. One of the first publications to take up this aspect was a paper by David McNeill, published in the Psychological Review in 1985. However, in that very year, in Semiotica, another significant publication treating gesture as a form of conceptual expression appeared. This was a paper by Genevieve Calbris on how speakers express ideas about time gesturally (Calbris 1985a). In that paper she showed
Foreword 
how speakers display spatial patterns in their gestures that are diagrammatic versions of the spatial metaphors in terms of which we so often speak about time. This paper was but one of a number of publications that began to appear under her name from 1979 onwards. In large part these flowed from an extended investigation into the semiotic nature of gesture and how it served in conceptual expression that she had started some years before, with the stimulus and guidance of Ivan Fónagy. Genevieve Calbris had produced, in 1983, a four volume work of 1478 pages, which appeared as her doctoral dissertation at the University of Paris III. This work, abstracted and re-worked, was published in English by Indiana University Press in 1990, under the title The Semiotics of French Gestures. It appeared as a volume in the series Advances in Semiotics under the general editorship of Thomas A. Sebeok. As I pointed out in an extended essay on this book that was published in 1992 (Kendon 1992), this was one of the first studies ever to attempt a systematic analysis of the ways in which the gesturing of speakers, or co-verbal gesture, as it is sometimes called, can serve as a vehicle for the representation of conceptual meaning. In this book, Calbris provided an account of the way in which gestures are organized as physical Â�movements and showed how these forms serve as vehicles for the expression of conceptual meanings. It achieves this expression through hand shapes and movement patterns which are derived from concrete actions of various kinds but which, through processes of visual metaphor, can serve to express all manner of abstract meanings. Her analyses showed the extreme readiness and ease with which humans seize upon visual appearances and patterns of movement of all sorts for symbolic use. By examining everyday conversational gesture she showed how speakers do this quite commonly and as an integral part of how they convey meaning. Calbris showed that there are gestural expressions that seem to express a concrete image of an action that is used in reference to something in an abstract, metaphorical way; on the other hand, gestures that make reference to concrete objects or actions do so by means of abstract or schematic expressions. Calbris argued, thus that gesture is a kind of pivot between the concrete and the abstract. It can suggest the process by which abstract conceptions are formed out of concrete perceptions and actions. As I pointed out in my essay on her work at the time, these observations fitted very well with the work on conceptual metaphor that was just then getting under way. For example, the work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) showed how extensively, in spoken language, use is made of metaphors that draw upon our visual and physical experience of our bodies and of the physical world in which we live. If thinking is derived by a process of internalisation of our experiences and manipulations of the physical world, including our own bodies, then it is no accident that language should make extensive metaphorical use of such experiences and perceptuo-motor processes. The observations and analyses presented in The Semiotics of French Gestures provided strong new grounds in support of this view.
╅ Elements of meaning in gesture
Nevertheless, despite the novelty of its insights and the fact that it fitted in with this growing interest in cognition as an embodied process, Calbris’ book had a limited impact. A few scholars did take note, and my own work on forms of pointing and on so-called “gesture families” was partly inspired by her book. However, for the most part, it seems to have been overlooked. There are a number of reasons for this. For one thing, I think that the title used for the English presentation of her work, “The Semiotics of French Gestures”, was not conducive to drawing a wide audience for the book. With such a title it would not have attracted readers interested in cognition and language as this field was then developing. Moreover, the fact that the numerous examples used to illustrate the insights presented in the book were described from memory and not from audio-visual recordings, and the fact that experimental procedures were not followed to verify the conclusions would have meant that many in the English-reading world who might have been attracted to a book on gesture, would have found the methodology and style in which the findings are presented quite uncongenial. Most important of all, however, I think that her book was ahead of its time. In 1990 gesture had not yet attracted the attention of those interested in cognitive psychology or cognitive linguistics. Although the view that human conceptions are grounded in bodily experience and in our interactions with our environment had already begun to develop, the idea that this approach might be fruitfully illuminated by the study of gesture had not yet become established. Calbris’ work has much to offer today. Given that the study of gesture is now recognised as being highly relevant for issues in the relationship between language and cognition, we can expect a very different reception for her work. For this reason I fully expect that this new book, Elements of Meaning in Gesture, which re-states, reinforces and considerably extends the conclusions of her earlier book, will take the place it deserves as one of the foundational works in the field of gesture studies. In addition, given the advances in audio-visual recording technology that have come about since 1990, in the present work the numerous analyses of examples that are presented are based upon audio-visual recordings that readers will be able to refer to and so verify for themselves the phenomena described and the interpretations offered. The writing of this book has been done in close collaboration with its translator, Mary Copple, who has rendered the text into English with great skill. It is with much pleasure that I welcome this book into the public arena. It stands to make a truly important contribution to the development of gesture studies and also to the development of the study of language and cognitive processes more generally. Adam Kendon Philadelphia Spring Equinox 2011
Acknowledgements This book, Elements of Meaning in Gesture, concludes a career of research into the semantic analysis of co-speech gesture which began with a doctoral thesis under the supervision of Professor I. Fónagy and whose further development would not have been possible without the cooperation of many people. I have benefited from substantial support from the École normale supérieure (ENS) whose directors L. Porcher (CREDIF-ENS) and S. Auroux (ENS Saint-Cloud and ENS Lyon) enabled the data gathering for the audio-visual corpus (J.-Cl. Durand†, D. Garabedian and P. Samson), and then its computerization (B. Commiot) in order to produce a DVD for research and teaching purposes (M–F Castaing and M. HuraultPlantet). This work was carried out within the framework of the project ‘Geste, Langage et Cognition’, a joint collaboration between three institutions: ENS, LIMSI-CNRS, and the Université de Franche Comté. Interdisciplinary seminars focusing on gesture at which I participated – with ethnologists (G. Calame-Griaule, B. Koechlin, and N. Revel), linguists specialized in political discourse (M. Tournier), conversational interaction (J. Cosnier), language acquisition (J.-M. Colletta, C. Hudelot, and A. Van Der Straten), French sign language (D. Boutet, D. Bouvet, A. Braffort, and C. Cuxac) – and a seminar on co-speech gesture, ‘Le geste lié à la parole’, which J. Montredon and I jointly conducted over many years at the Centre de Linguistique Appliquée de Besançon – Université de Franche-Comté and at the ENS de Saint-Cloud – provided the opportunity for fruitful exchanges with colleagues which resulted in joint publications and audio-visual teaching materials. Returning to the present work, I must thank all those who have granted me the right to reproduce their images: the gesturers who appear in the videos, J. Ardoino, G. Berger, G. Charpak†, T. Eloi, J.-L. Fauche, J. Favret-Saada, A. Legrand, D. Levaillant, S. Moscovici, B. Nardin, R. Perron, M. Reberioux†, H. Serieyx, M. Serres, A. Touraine, A. Vinokur, and P. Viveret, and the cartoonists Bretecher, Chakir, Gotlib, Hugot, Lambil, Lapointe, Wolinski, and Zaü. The present book summarizes my research work, and I began writing the French manuscript in 2000 at the request of Cornelia Müller, at that time co-editor with Adam Kendon of the journal Gesture, following a seminar held at the Free University Berlin. Completed in 2006 and accepted by John Benjamins in 2007, it was translated by Mary Copple in 2008. Originally, it included numerous drawings, photographs, diagrams, tables, as well as an introductory Power Point Presentation that was shown at the First Congress of the International Society for Gesture Studies held
╅ Elements of meaning in gesture
in Austin, Texas in 2002. The book was conceived to be read with reference to a DVD of the Power Point Presentation and the videos analysed in the text and comprised four main chapters treating (I) the functions of gesture, (II) the systematic organization of gestural signs, (III) the symbolic relations between gestures and notions, and (IV) the gestural sign in the utterance. Once the translation of the manuscript had been read by Adam Kendon in 2008, it was revised and reorganized into seven chapters, an introduction and a conclusion were written, the DVD was abandoned, and the terminology and the format became fixed during the course of 2009. A joint review by the author, the translator and the editor in the autumn of 2009 led to the decisions to reduce the non-textual content to figures and tables, to reorganize the contents into ten chapters, to add an introduction and a summary to each chapter, and to stylistically edit the whole book. This required not only re-working the text but also re-numbering all the tables and figures and updating the many internal cross-references in the book. Constant intermediary between the author and the editor, as well as between the author and the reader represented by the editor, the translator had a difficult and demanding task requiring intelligence and diplomacy. It therefore became for Mary Copple not just a matter of producing an accurate translation of the original manuscript, which was completed in 2008. Over and above that, a long interactive process of re-writing the text began in 2009 and finally came to an end in 2010. Under these conditions, and after many consultations in person, by telephone and by e-mail, Mary Copple has produced a translation in the full sense of the term while seeking to adapt the content so as to express it as clearly as possible in English and with great precision. I am deeply grateful for her persistent efforts and her patience. Furthermore, I owe the title to her. Also demanding of himself, and despite his many commitments, Adam Kendon read the whole text with great care and attention, posed questions, made critical remarks, and very kindly suggested reformulations before advising me to restructure and clarify the contents. The book has thus benefited from numerous reformulations and clarifications thanks to my two English collaborators, Adam Kendon and Mary Copple. While Adam Kendon presided over the final stages of the project, it would not have existed without Cornelia Müller’s will to initiate it, and Mary Copple’s resolve to carry it through. Thanks to their constancy and unflagging support, in their various capacities all three have enabled the present work to be realized.
Introduction This book is about cognitive connections between gesture and speech that may be established during utterance production. Among the functions of gesture presented, emphasis will be given to its referential function. To orient the reader to the approach taken and to provide some background to the proposals put forward, let us begin with some landmarks in the literature concerning the phylogeny and the ontogeny of language. André Leroi-Gourhan’s (1964) Le geste et la Parole is our point of departure. With Gesture and Speech, Leroi-Gourhan offers a vivid contrast to Chomsky’s contemporary mentalist view of language that espoused Cartesian rationalism with its barriers between man and beast, and between body and mind. On the contrary, Leroi-Gourhan takes an integrated approach to human evolution: gesture (conceived of as ‘material action’) and speech are seen as twin products of an embodied mind that engendered our technical and social achievements. (Copple 2003:â•›49)
Indeed, Leroi-Gourhan (1964) shows how the evolution of upright stance and walking, in tandem with consecutive modifications of the skull, could have had repercussions on the cognitive capacities of prehominin species. Liberated from locomotion, the hand can create tools. Liberated from prehension, the mouth can speak. The hand perfects its physical apprehension of the world, and the mouth perfects its expression of how the world is comprehended. The hand also participates in this expression of the mental world by depicting images on cave walls. Thereafter, it indirectly rejoins linguistic expression through writing. Thus, following Leroi-Gourhan, not only does gesture intervene in our physical interaction with the world but also in our pictorial (drawing) and even linguistic (writing) expressions of mental representation. One finds it constantly present in this interactive loop of progressive feedback between action and representation. Gesture is primordial because it is primary and constantly present in the human movement of grasping and in our intellectual assimilation of the world; it manifests itself in all expressions of mental representation, one of which is linguistic expression. Gesture co-occurs with speech and it is this ‘co-speech’ gesture that constitutes our object of study. What, precisely, do I mean by the term gesture? In this book I draw upon LeroiGourhan’s concept of gesture as ‘material action’ and the general understanding of

Elements of meaning in gesture
gesture as meaningful body movement.1 In my view, a gesture may be the visible movement of any body part that one makes in order to communicate. The principal focus will be on hand gestures. However, gestures made by other body parts, such as the torso, the head, including gaze direction and facial expression, will also be treated. Our next landmark text is L’↜Anthropologie du geste by Marcel Jousse (1974), in which he analyses oral expression both in children and in cultures that transmit their knowledge by word of mouth alone. He insists on what appears to be a reverberation of the living world in the human body. Semiosis, conceptualization, and thought originate in the body, the receptacle of real-world interactions. What Jousse calls ‘interaction’ is an action that acts upon another action, “the Activator activating the Activated”.2 And the child seems to him to be ontogenetically programmed to feel these interactions and to express them spontaneously: “We know what, through interaction, is im-pressed in us and that is ex-pressed”.3 His intuition will be confirmed later by the discovery of proto-imitation in newborns (Meltzoff & Moore 1977, 1983) and that of mirror neurons (Rizzolatti et al. 1996). ‘Physical mirroring’ (Fr. mimage) constitutes the first language: external interactions are not only mimed by the whole body, but also by what Jousse considers to be the physical centre of assimilation, the bucco-pharyngeal cavity, through vocal mimesis.4 Jousse (1936:â•›209) clearly states his position: The growing human being therefore ‘enacts’ in this way, himself, by imitation, i.e. consciously and voluntarily, what has previously ‘been enacted’ in him through mimesis, i.e. unconsciously and involuntarily. The expressive tool had been activated in him (lit.) without himself: he masters it from then on and uses it, according to his own wishes, in order to signify.5
.â•… Leroi-Gourhan’s “conception of gesture includes technical (toolmaking and usage), figurative (art making) and linguistic (writing) use of the hands, as well as their ‘commentating’ synchronicity with speech (gesticulation)” (Copple 2003:â•›88). .â•… “l’Agent agissant l’Agi”. Translation GC. .â•… “Nous savons ce qui, en interactionnant, s’est im-primé en nous et cela s’ex-prime” (Jousse 1974:â•›63). Translation MC. .â•… Jousse (1936) gives an example of vocal mimesis that is particularly striking: a young peasant from the Sarthe area in France tells his mother how the cat has just eaten a chicken by vocally miming the ‘meowing’ (Fr. miaulant) that has ‘snapped up’ (Fr. a happé) the ‘bawk-bawk’ (Fr. cot-cot-ant): “miaou ham cô”. .â•… “L’↜anthropos grandissant ‘fait’ donc ainsi, lui-même, par imitation, c’est-à-dire consciemment et volontairement, ce qui ‘se faisait’ auparavant en lui par mimisme, c’est-à-dire inconsciemment et involontairement. L’outil expressif s’était monté en lui sans lui: il en prend désormais la maîtrise et le reproduit, selon son bon plaisir, pour signifier” (Jousse 1936:â•›209). Translation MC.
Introduction
Since Jean Piaget’s (1936) seminal work, mimesis has been considered a stage in the development of symbolic representation. Mimetic and subsequent linguistic representations are related. Susan Goldin-Meadow (2003) highlights this in her studies of older children faced with a cognitive task. Confronted with the Piagetian conservation problem of estimating whether the same quantity of liquid poured into differently shaped containers retains the same volume, some of the children who wrongly insisted on a change in volume produced a gesture-speech ‘mismatch’: their verbal explanation focused on the experimenter’s pouring motions, while their gestural explanation showed the shape of the containers into which the liquid was poured. Thus, despite the falsehood of their beliefs, their gestures had cognitive significance by revealing what they knew but did not say. Furthermore, only the children who produced many of these mismatches profited from subsequent verbal instruction in volume conservation and recognized their error. Goldin-Meadow (2003) therefore suggests that such mismatches not only indicate an imminent capacity to learn something new but also that gestural expression may promote cognitive growth. Considered as a stage in the acquisition of symbolic thought, mimesis itself, according to Zlatev (2002), undergoes several stages of development: (1) initially, imitation is systematic and involuntary; (2) it becomes intentional but nevertheless requires the presence of the object and acquires a pragmatic function; (3) once the object can be memorized and is absent, imitation becomes representational and acquires a symbolic function; (4) once a model of the object has become internalized, imitation is schematized; (5) once schematized, simplified imitations readily link up to form gestures. One thus passes from proto-imitation (1. involuntary) to imitation (2. pragmatic), to (panto)mime (3. symbolic), to mimetic schema (4. schematized), and finally to gesture (5. stylized imitation):
Proto-imitation > imitation > (panto)mime > mimetic schema > gesture (Zlatev 2002)
Thus, the ascent from concrete experience to abstract thought is initiated through action and through imitation which allows the physically memorized integration of observed interactions. How to grasp the world physically and mentally, that is what the human species has learned. That is what the little human being relearns in the first years of life. That is what is discernible in adult language, as cognitive linguists (Lakoff & Johnson 1980) underline. That is what will be confirmed by our analysis of co-speech gestures because, as we shall see, kinesic representational expression frequently precedes verbal expression during the process of utterance production. Thus, both verbal expression and gestural expression provide evidence of the process of ascending from concrete experience to abstract thought. Through its representational activity during speech production it is conceivable that gesture retraces, as it were, the path from action to representation, from the


Elements of meaning in gesture
concrete to the abstract, proposed in Leroi-Gourhan’s (1964) phylogenetic scenario. Furthermore, if one admits Jousse’s ontogenetic scenario in which the child’s body is ‘animated’ by vibrant interactions of the external world taking place inside him, then it is also plausible that a person can externalize such interactions to express abstract ideas conceived in the image of the concrete world. This perceptual-motor experience includes the knowledge we have of our own bodies interacting with its environment. The body is simultaneously the source and the displayer of sensations, the producer of movements, postures, behaviours, actions and signs that, from the simple physical point of view, are all interactions of the body with its environment. The body, the seat of symptoms and reflex actions, is a producer of actions and signs. To what extent could the latter, via a relation of contiguity or resemblance, be derived from the former? Reactive behaviours that serve as indicators of a person’s affective or psychic state can be deliberately reproduced in order to signify the state that they naturally indicate. By way of gesture, the human being re-expresses all the vibrant interactions that issue from his culturally influenced or determined perceptual-motor experience (Mauss 1935), whether they be deeply felt, proprioceptively sensed or externally observed and cognitively integrated. This is the conclusion that I have come to after many years of empirical research into a series of questions about the semantic contribution of nonverbal elements during language use. The research began by studying attitudes that French people express through concurrent intonational and facial expressions, which are truly audio-visual nonverbal entities (Calbris & Montredon 1980). It continued by concentrating solely on the visual modality, first of all on conventional gestural expressions that can be understood without a context (emblems), and then on spontaneous gestural expressions that occur during speech production (co-speech gesture). Initially, 50 French (Calbris 1980:â•›245–347) and foreign (Calbris 1981:â•›125–156) subjects were tested using an experimental film designed to study how 34 conventional French co-occuring facial expressions and hand gestures that replace speech are structured to convey meaning. The results give indications of the relative pertinence of meaningful physical features and the cultural character of these expressions. Moreover, the foreign subjects interpreted them as signs that necessarily have a motivated origin, that is to say, there seems to be a natural driving force that has led to their appearance as opposed to an arbitrary pairing of forms and meanings established by convention. An outcome of this initial research was the need to verify the motivation of the physical components of the gestures produced during spontaneous uses of language. This gave rise to Corpus I, a very varied collection of about a thousand samples of co-speech French gestures ethnographically noted in 1981 in the field, for example, in trains and cafes, as well as selected from media such as films, comedy sketch shows and television debates. The semiotic analysis of these gestures, classified
Introduction
according to their physical aspects by evaluating the hierarchical relevance of their physical components in view of their corresponding contextual meanings deduced from their context of use, was the subject of a doctoral thesis (Calbris 1983), later condensed in a book (1990). A comparative analysis of the data showed that one gesture can evoke several notions (gestural polysemy) and that one notion can be represented by several gestures (gesture variants). This being the case, how is the presumably motivated character of gesture maintained? To answer this question, a further comparative analysis of the data was conducted. This revealed the phenomena of semantic derivation on the basis of one physico-semantic link (single motivation), or the presence of several different physico-semantic links (plural motivation) that may in turn be subject to further semantic derivation (Calbris 1987:â•›57–96). The comparison of the semantic data also revealed gestural representations of abstract thought, the possibility of expressing, for example, notions of time and their nuances by employing different positions, distances and movements in space, all organized within a coherent system (Calbris 1985:â•›43–73). A supplementary corpus of recorded gesture data proves to be indispensable for confirming the results obtained from observations noted in the field. Hence Corpus 2 was established in 1990. This database of samples of French gestures was recorded on videodisc and comprises fragments of sequences varying in length from a few seconds to one minute and selected from filmed interviews with about 60 people, mostly intellectuals. It was thus possible to verify, among other things, that gestural formulation frequently anticipates the verbal formulation of the thought to be expressed. Having resolved the question of how co-speech gesture functions semiotically, since it differs from the verbal sign in this respect, there arises the question of how the two types of sign interact synergetically during utterance production. Corpus 3, a series of six interviews with Lionel Jospin, the former French Prime Minister, which were broadcast on French television between July & April 1997, was established for the purposes of this kind of analysis. In this book, in order to progress towards a deep understanding of surface phenomena, I draw upon these three corpora to systematically present the stages of an analysis that operates on several descending levels: from the examination of a co-speech gesture in its contexts of use, to its motivation, and then to the physical origin of its motivation. Its title Elements of meaning in gesture summarizes my view that physical features of gestural expression have semiotic potential. My aim is to analyse how the representational activity of gesture functions when realizing this potential for conveying meaning during speech production and in liaison with it. In reality, one does not just use one’s voice to get a message across. One uses parallel sensory pathways, audio-oral and visual-gestural, which interact in multimodal communication, that is, the ensemble of spoken linguistic, prosodic, intonational, gestural, postural, and facial activity that participants engage in when they ‘talk’. The spoken linguistic, prosodic,


Elements of meaning in gesture
and intonational activity employs the audio-oral modality; and the gestural, postural, and facial activity employs the visual-gestural modality. My understanding of the term co-speech gesture encompasses the visible movement of any body part consciously or unconsciously made with the intention of communicating while speech is being produced. While the main focus is on hand gestures, my treatment of gesture also includes head gestures, gaze direction and facial expressions, for example, movement of the eyebrows, nostrils and lips. If several gestures are simultaneously produced they constitute a kinesic ensemble. For the purpose of analysis a gesture is subdivided into gestural components: body part, configuration, localization, movement, and orientation. We shall also have occasion to supplement these components with other relevant physical features of gestures, such as laterality and movement features. The term sign is used to mean a symbolic unit constituted by a form and a meaning. If there is no apparent natural connection between a form and its meaning, it is called an arbitrary sign. If what connects the form to its meaning is a natural link established by analogy with the physico-cultural world, it is called a motivated sign. This is the case of a representational gesture in context. A gestural sign is established by a physico-semantic link between a physical feature of the gesture and its contextual meaning. Through systematic analysis we shall explore how such a physico-semantic link is constructed on the basis of our perceptual-motor experience of the world. This primary physico-semantic link is referred to as the analogical link because, in my view, there is the natural link of contiguity or of resemblance established by analogy between a physical aspect of the gesture and an aspect of the physico-cultural world that gives rise to its contextual meaning. The analogical link is what I consider, through the descending levels of analysis, to be the motivation of the gestural sign. I hold that a gestural sign only ever exists in a given context. In my view, a gesture considered out of context has the potential to offer analogical links, one or more of which may be activated in a context of use. Once a gesture is examined in context, it is only then that one can see which of these analogical links is or are being used. It is only then that one can talk about the gestural sign(s) that the gesture in question contains. The term context is used to mean the physical, cultural and psychological elements of an interactional situation. When analysing the given examples of gestures selected from interviews with people filmed on their own and facing the camera, it is above all the verbal context and the vocal context that are examined, but importance is also given to the kinesic context, meaning other bodily movements simultaneously produced with the gesture in question. Since a gesture is a motivated sign, the analogical link(s) it contains determine(s) what it means. The analogical link is the key to the symbolic functioning of gesture and for this reason it is the subject of Chapter 1, “The gestural sign and related key concepts”. There, the analogical link from its roots in physico-cultural experience to its manifestation during spoken discourse will be discussed. Firstly, I insist on the physical
Introduction
origin of the analogical link, and then on the necessity of identifying it by examining its different manifestations observed across various samples of discourse. The subsequent chapters follow an underlying logic that organizes this study of co-speech gesture into four main parts. The overarching aim is to gain an understanding of the referential function of gesture (Part I), that operates via gestural signs (Part II), and that are established in context between gestures and notions (Part III). These steps will then enable us to study the semantic contribution of gestural signs to utterance production (Part IV). The four main parts are structured as follows: Part I. The functions of co-speech gesture and its functions specific to speech production are discussed. I begin with the demarcative function in Chapter 2, and continue in Chapter 3 with the referential function and show how one determines the contextual meaning of representational gestures. Part II. Since the referential function of co-speech gesture relies on its physical aspects, Chapter 4 proposes a classification of gestures based on their physical elements, and Chapter 5 describes in detail the proposed method for analysing co-speech gesture. Part III. The referential function of co-speech gesture is complex, so the symbolic relations between gestures and notions viewed from complementary perspectives are analysed in two chapters. Chapter 6 takes the perspective of one notion evoked by different gestures. Chapter 7 takes the inverse perspective of one gesture that is able to evoke different notions. A comparative analysis of these two types of diversity, physical on the one hand, and semantic on the other, allows one to discover a link between a physical feature of a given gesture and a meaning that recurs across the data analysed. This results in the identification of the analogical link and hence the gestural sign that the gesture in question contains. Chapter 8 demonstrates how gesture’s potential for semantic diversity, on the one hand, and for physical diversity, on the other, may interact. Thereby I show that this interaction provides insight into how the symbolic mechanism based on analogical links works. Part IV. Having established basic principles governing the gestural system, it is then possible to study the impact of the symbolic nature of the gestural sign within the utterance act. Chapter 9 focuses on the relations between gesture and speech with respect to their ideational and temporal segmentation into units, and on the synergetic functioning of these units of gestural and verbal information. Finally, from this analysis one can deduce how the gestural expression of abstract notions is obtained. Chapter 10 shows how gesture extracts symbolic material from our physical interactions with the world we inhabit, providing intermediary image schemas between the concrete and the abstract that underlie verbalization. The Conclusion reviews the main themes treated and brings together the main arguments for viewing gesture as a symbolic system in its own right that interfaces with thought and speech production.


Elements of meaning in gesture
A guide to conventions used in the book To familiarize the reader with typographical conventions used in the book, and to equip him with some useful guidelines regarding access to supplementary visual and audio-visual material, here is a synopsis. Each chapter begins with an overview and ends with a summary of the main points covered. In the overview, the headings of the main sections are given (in round brackets) thus indicating the structure of the chapter and the topics discussed. Video clips of many of the examples of co-speech gestures analysed can be viewed on the John Benjamins’ website. The video clips are numbered 1–75 and follow the order in which the examples appear in the book. The reader will find illustrations of the hand configurations referred to in the book in Appendix A. The examples discussed are presented as transcripts of the original French verbal utterance in which English descriptions of the co-speech gestures are inserted [in square brackets] immediately before the onset of the gesture in question. The duration of a co-speech gesture is indicated by the text in italics. The two main formats in which examples are presented aim to accommodate the diversity of the individual cases and to facilitate the reader’s rapid understanding of the analysis: (1) Most frequently, the French transcript of the verbal utterance, interleaved with English descriptions of the gestures as they occur in the speech stream, is given in one paragraph followed by the whole example in English in a separate paragraph; (2) Otherwise, several examples are presented sequentially in one paragraph in which the French transcript of each verbal utterance is immediately followed by its English translation (in round brackets), and descriptions of the gestures are only given once in English. The second format is used to avoid exceedingly long repetitions in cases where either a series of short verbal utterances have a co-speech gesture in common, or a short verbal utterance occurs with a gesture requiring a lengthy description, or a verbal utterance occurs with a long gesture sequence, or a series of examples demonstrating the same point are dealt with collectively. Due to the long lists of examples presented in Chapter 5, only the English translations of the verbal utterances are given there. The reader is referred to Appendix B for the French transcripts of these verbal utterances. Lastly, the reader should be aware that French and English word order differ. For example, in French, adjectives most frequently follow the nouns they qualify, whereas in English they normally precede them. Therefore, in order to retain the order in which the speaker’s ideas are expressed, the English translation of the transcript mirrors French word order as closely as possible. In instances where the word order may be relevant in view of the co-speech gesture produced, but where the reader may have difficulty in understanding the ‘mirror’ translation reflecting the French word order, he will find a short footnote that gives the normal English word order.
chapter 1
The gestural sign and related key concepts In this chapter I provide an introduction to a number of key concepts and issues that are central to understanding what a gestural sign is, and this will lead us to understanding how gesture functions as a semiotic system. These concepts and issues will all be treated in greater detail later. First of all, the relationship between our common experience of the physical world, our modes of interacting with it, the ways in which we handle objects in it, and the forms of expression found in representational gestures are discussed. We shall see how the forms of such gestures can be understood as being derived from the ways in which we encounter and deal with our physical environment (The gestural sign drawn from physical experience). Then the concept of the gestural sign will be explained. It will be shown how a representational gesture may potentially contain more than one gestural sign if more than one of its physical features may carry meaning (The gestural sign in discourse). We shall see how a given gestural component, such as a configuration of the hand or the fingers, may take on different meanings in different gestures, in which case it is said to be polysemous. We shall also see how a gesture can, at the moment of its use, express several different notions simultaneously, in which case it is said to be a polysign. Taking an ideational perspective, I then examine how a given notion can be expressed on different occasions by different gestures. Such gestures are called gesture variants. Furthermore, if such gestures are performed simultaneously in a kinesic ensemble, they are called cumulative variants. It will be shown how one can discover the analogical link between a physical feature of a gesture and its meaning, hence a gestural sign it contains, by considering the interaction between gesture variants and gestural polysemy. As we shall see, all of these concepts are important for a full account of how gesture functions as a semiotic system, which should become clearer as one progresses through the subsequent chapters. For illustrations of the hand configurations mentioned in this chapter the reader is referred to Appendix A. Let us begin by focusing on the physical foundations of gestural expression, the concrete world in which gesture is rooted, and how gesture gives an account of this concrete world.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
1.â•… The gestural sign drawn from physical experience 1.1â•… Experience of the physical world Gestural representation draws upon our common experience of the physical world. By imitating how an instrument is handled one can refer to each one of the components involved in the action, to each element in the operational chain: the actor, his action of using the instrument, the instrument itself, the action of the instrument on an object to achieve a goal, and the object. Hence the sequence subject-action-instrument-actionobject is an action schema. For example, one can mime holding a fishing rod to refer to the angler, to him handling the rod, to the rod itself, to the act of fishing, or to the fish attracted to the bait at the end of the line. Furthermore, this action schema can be applied to another object and metaphorically represent the way in which a person is baited in order to trick him. By analogy, the gesture presents the relevant element (handling the fishing rod) referred to in the action schema, and the context enables the interlocutor to identify the segment of the action schema to which the speaker is referring. This simple example shows that both the encoding and the decoding of a representational gesture imply metaphoric and/or metonymic cognitive processes that are inspired by ‘links’ of resemblance or contiguity between what we experience in the physical world and the gestures we perform. According to Aristotle, “a metaphor is the application of a word that belongs to another thing” that may occur “by analogy”.1 In general terms, independent of the modality in which the metaphor may be expressed, one can conceive of it as understanding one thing in terms of another. In my view, using contemporary terms, a representational gesture is established by a mapping from a source domain (physical experience) to a target domain (notion). It is a physical description of the source domain. It enacts or depicts the concrete source of the abstract notion in the target domain.2 The mapping between the source and the target domain is the analogical link. A representational gesture uses metonymy to signify by representing parts of the source domain to evoke the whole picture or scenario that conveys its meaning. In the above example, the gesture representing the handling of a fishing rod evokes the whole action schema of fishing via metonymy, and the transfer from this source domain (action schema of fishing) to the target domain (baiting someone in order to trick him) is activated via metaphor. The potential of the action schema subject-action-object-result to convey meaning is so great that one can sometimes decompose the different phases of the (hand)
.â•… Aristotle, Poetics 21, translated by Stephen Halliwell, Loeb Classical Library (1995:â•›105). .â•… Cf. Cienki & Müller in Gibbs (ed.) 2008.
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts
movement into action-schema components. One may imagine at the beginning of the movement the subject (hand) that causes the action represented, during the movement the action applied to a virtual object, and at the end of the movement the result of that action. How one interprets a movement depends on its timing in relation to the situation in which it occurs. This is why a movement may not only represent what it is doing, but also what it has done, for example, the act of encircling something (the action itself) or a circular form (the result of the action), and from there it can offer a new range of possible meanings relating to this form. Likewise, without a context, the meaning of a movement in a given direction is ambiguous. Has the movement been produced to represent the subject moving towards something or making something else (a virtual object) move in that direction? Or has it been produced to counter a movement coming from the opposite direction (a virtual contrary force)? The contextual situation specifies the meaning of the movement. Gestural representation, as already stated, draws upon our knowledge of physicocultural interrelations established during the course of our daily lives. Thus, our mode of manual prehension is adapted to the object we are grasping, and from the type of grasp represented by the gesture we can infer the shape or the size of the object in question. For example, grasping a minute object like a needle between the nails of the thumb and the index finger requires precision. Here, the action schema implies both the quality of the act of grasping (precision) and the size of the object grasped (very small). This is why the gesture of uniting the tips of the nails of the thumb and index fingers, resulting in the ‘Ring’ hand configuration (see Appendix A, 16.), evokes the minute size of the object (concrete or abstract) in question as well as the precision of the act (concrete or abstract) in question. One always finds internal links of contiguity in the action schema and a link of resemblance between the act and the gesture, between the concrete and the abstract. These are links that are learned from our physico-cultural experience of life and then used to represent it. This competency, commonly shared among communication partners, allows them to make and draw sophisticated inferences. The important point to retain from the above discussion is that the interpretation of a gesture requires us to reason on the physical level, because that is where the semiotic process is initiated. Let us now consider the physical possibilities available to gesture for representing the physical world. We shall see that the quality of the movement is of importance, and that combining the physical elements of a gesture differently produces different meanings. With the hand, we can pinch, hold, encompass, take, close something, etc. With the palm we can carry, weigh, compress, crush, remove, push, etc. With the hand, we act and we signify, signifying what we do in a completely natural manner. However,

 Elements of meaning in gesture
we signify what we do without the physical object: the hand is empty! In some cases, because the quality of the movement is recognized as being distinctive in reality, it can serve as an indicator and, by a link of contiguity, allow us to infer the existence of a virtual object. Thus, abruptly stopping a movement implies the obstacle that stops it: abruptly stopping a downward movement of the palm aligned in a vertical plane transforms what could be the representation of a partition wall panel (palm = object) into the representation of cutting something (palm > action > object subjected to action). The context determines the nature of the action, in this case whether the cutting referred to is physical, psychological, or temporal. The quality of the movement, i.e. an acceleration followed by an abrupt stop, gives salience to the edge of the hand rather than to the surface of the palm; it changes and redistributes the relevance, the respective value of the physical elements that constitute the sign. Movement qualities (speed, acceleration, abrupt stopping, strength, size) prove to be elements that are just as relevant as those largely recognized to be gestural components or parameters (body part, configuration, localization, orientation, the shape and direction of movement). They could be considered as additional gestural components. Salience given to a different selection of a gesture’s physical elements induces different representations. For example, the palm facing forwards presenting a flat, vertical surface in front of the body can move forwards to push forwards or to counter an approaching aggressive force. I call this hand configuration with the palm facing forwards, ‘Palm Forwards’ (see Appendix A, 6.). Due to our physical experience, we recognize the flat palm in this orientation and position as being an active or a reactive force, as a gesture that simply means what it does in reality: obstruct something, give resistance to an aggressive force coming towards oneself, protect oneself from it, or even push it away. It draws its meaning from a physical function (self-protection). It is or it represents an opposing force, and this primary sign of opposition is subject to semantic derivation. This type of representational gesture is based on an analogy of function (palm moves forwards to protect oneself) originating from a link of contiguity between the gesture (palm moves forwards) and its functional meaning (to protect oneself). The analogical link of function is a link of contiguity. However, as a vertical surface with a rectangular shape turned away from the body, the palm facing forwards at face level can represent a notice, the relevant element in the action of putting an announcement on a notice board. The virtual object thus represented can evoke via metonymy the whole action schema and its motive, i.e. putting a notice on a board to make its written content known to everyone, and by further semantic derivation, beyond the domain of the written word, it can evoke the action of making something known to everyone as if one were displaying it on a notice board. This example shows that the semiotic process that produces representational gesture
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts 
occurs in stages, in this case via several links: resemblance of shape (rectangular flat palm and notice), temporal contiguity (displaying information), and resemblance of motive (public announcement). This type of representational gesture is based on an analogy of shape between the gesture (rectangular shape of the palm) and a notice (rectangular shape of a notice). The analogical link of shape is a link of physical resemblance, and the contextual meaning (public announcement) is derived from this physical resemblance. In sum, the analogical link is the initial link of contiguity or of resemblance established through analogy between a relevant physical feature of the gesture and our physical experience of the world. It is the root that taps the source of gestural semanticity. On the basis of the analogical link, further links of contiguity or resemblance may come into play to create the contextual meaning of a gesture. We shall come back to the importance of identifying the analogical link of a gesture in order to discover its meaning in a given context.
1.2â•… Representation of the physical world Pantomimic gesture enables one to see and feel what the speaker means; its analogical character is evident. Here is a particularly striking example recorded many years ago. During the summer of 1978 there was a programme about famous shipwrecks presented by Alain Bombard on French television. Being a good narrator, Bombard physically illustrated what he was talking about. He let the viewer relive the events by making numerous large, symmetrical gestures. Here is a selection of those which accompanied the movements that he was describing. With his palm facing forwards, Bombard plugs holes in the vessel or makes it sail away with a tailwind blowing. With his extended index finger, he drives in new steel bolts. With a repeated upward movement of the palms facing upwards, he raises the Vasa (a 17th century Swedish warship). Later on, with his concave hands enclosing the hull of a vessel, he makes it rock from side to side. His rounded arms come together like pincers to clench it. With a forward thrust of the fist, the Titanic receives a violent impact. With an extended hand pointing upwards, he lifts the bow towards the sky before sinking the ship with his hand pointing downwards. The representation of the movement gives a dynamic account of the acts and events taking place. Pantomimic gesture referring to a concrete object reproduces the features that distinguish it from other objects. An object is not only characterized by its shape and size, but also by movement dynamics associated with it: What one does with it. It is held to be pinched together (tweezers), pressed (aerosol spray), pushed (carpenter’s plane), turned (crank handle), etc. By holding it one forms its shape: the convex shape of a bowl, the cylindrical shape of a glass, the symmetrical shape of headphones. The movement sometimes
 Elements of meaning in gesture
draws and outlines what one does with the object: one puts the headphones over the ears, knots a scarf in front of the neck, and throws the end of a shawl over the shoulder. It is a compromise between pantomime and drawing. How one operates it. Using the same selection process, a car is symbolized by the hands turning the steering wheel, and a bicycle by the hands turning the pedals, although driving a car also involves foot movements pressing and releasing the pedals, and riding a bicycle also involves hand movements turning the handlebars. Our gestures retain what is perceptually distinctive about the way we handle these objects to operate them. Likewise, a scooter or a motorbike will be represented by operating the throttle and brake controls on the handlebars, i.e. by a turning movement of the wrists with the hands curved around the cylindrical shape of the virtual controls. Thus, the movement of operating one element metonymically evokes the entire object. How it functions. Likewise, moving the forearms held in parallel alternatively forwards and backwards will reproduce the movement of the pistons of a train; a horizontal circle drawn with an extended index finger referring to the sky will reproduce the typical movement of the rotary blades of a helicopter. One represents the distinctive physical element which evokes the whole object via a link of contiguity. Is an animal viewed as an object that is moved or as an autonomous being? According to whether one wants to evoke the activity of riding or the horse itself, one will describe it gesturally either as an object by moving the reins or as an animated being that gallops. Any animal can be defined by the way in which it moves from place to place only if this is characteristic: a horse gallops, a flea jumps, a snake slithers, etc. If it lacks a particular mode of locomotion, it is defined by a distinctive behaviour: the rabbit constantly wiggles its nose, the monkey often scratches itself. If it lacks a specific dynamic feature, then the animated being or the object may have a distinctive static feature, a particular shape that will be reproduced in (1) a static or (2) a dynamic manner: the whole surface of a dome can be represented either by (1) a convex hand configuration with the fingers spread apart, palm facing downwards, or (2) by the surface of the hand describing a semicircle from left to right, or alternatively by both hands describing two symmetrical quarter circles. In order to evoke a small round object, we have the choice between (1) the thumb and the index finger joined in a circle, or (2) the movement of the index finger drawing a circular outline. Encoding a representational gesture supposes shared common knowledge of the features that distinguish its various possible referents from one another. To illustrate this, let us compare three gestures performed at head level to refer to a monk, to a practising Jew, and to a lump on the head respectively. The bald patch of a monk or a bald person will be delineated by its contour, by manually drawing a circle on the skull. A Jewish kippa (skull cap) will be represented by its surface, a spherical element represented by a convex hand configuration with the fingers spread apart and placed
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts 
on the top of the head. To reproduce the outgrowth of a lump, which has a spherical surface with a more marked convexity and a smaller circumference, the hand configuration will be more convex with the fingers closer together. The gesture reproduces the feature that distinguishes the bald patch (contour) from the skull cap (surface) as well as the degree of convexity that distinguishes the skull cap (more convex) from the lump (less convex). It must also translate an opposition in movement: a skull cap is placed on the head, whereas a lump grows out of it. Thus, in order to avoid ambiguity, relevant, underlying, distinguishing features of the referent are taken into account and synthesized in one gesture. Simultaneously, the gesture reproduces the size and the localization of the bald patch; the shape, the localization, the hand grip on and the placement of the skull cap; the shape, the localization, the size, and the formation of the lump. Mimesis is an operation of abstraction which creates concrete representations. It implies the comparison, the selection, and the recombination of physically relevant elements that are synthesized into one single schematic gesture that can be performed efficiently. One has to choose appropriate ways of representing the referent. Accordingly, the French codify their gestures of measurement: a gap of 1 to 2â•›cm between two parallel fingers is reserved for signifying a small quantity, e.g. Un tout petit peu (Just a little bit), and 4 to 7â•›cm represents a small size, e.g. On m’a donné un petit échantillon de parfum, je te l’↜ai amené (I was given a small sample bottle of perfume, I’ve brought it for you). The size of larger objects will be represented by a larger gap, not between the fingers, but between the hands, sometimes held apart at arm’s length, in proportion to the dimension evoked, e.g. On avait la grande valise marron (We had the big brown suitcase). Even if it evokes a concrete activity, miming implies an abstraction, a transfer from the body part(s) that perform(s) the activity to the body part(s) used to refer to it. Climbing, running, and slithering all require coordinated movement of the upper and lower limbs. In pantomimic representation, these different activities will usually be reduced to the movement of the upper limbs. Generally, one observes a transfer from the lower to the upper body, the hands substituting for the feet, and the shoulders for the hips. It is the palms that avancent à petits pas de loup (creep up stealthily like a wolf), that pataugent (lit. wade through mud, fig. get bogged down), and the fists that pédalent (pedal). The striking analogy between the articulations of the fingers and those of the legs seem to predispose the index and the middle fingers to represent walking. Thus, one can gesturally represent an action, a state, an object, an animal, or a person characterized by a distinctive dynamic or static feature. Even when giving an account of a concrete reality, gestural representation implies a mental process of abstraction that will influence what is to be characterized (what is the visibly distinctive feature?), and on how this is to be done (the choice of body part(s), the most appropriate movements, symbolic norms to be respected).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Moreover, a mimetic gesture does not necessarily refer to the act that is being imitated, but it can also, and as we have already seen, refer to the idea derived from the result of the imitated act (fishing > tricked person; putting up a notice > public announcement). From the semiotic point of view, one observes that the link established between a gesture and its meaning is not direct: it supposes a link of resemblance followed by a link of contiguity. The gesture does not evoke the act that is imitated but its consequence. For example, the hand that moves as if it were cutting the throat evokes decapitation by resemblance, and via decapitation it evokes its result: the rapid, definitive, physical elimination of a person. The mimetic gesture evokes the idea of elimination rather than the means employed to achieve this end, even if it evokes the idea by representing the means employed. Note that representing an action in order to evoke its result, or representing a part in order to evoke the whole, or another element of the whole, all require the establishment of a relation of contiguity. In short, the context changes our viewpoint, our perception of a gesture. We are dealing with gestural components that interplay and convey meaning via their analogical link(s) with the physical world. It is a gesture’s context that determines which particular components of the gesture are meaningful, and hence this interplay is constantly renewed every time we signify with our hands. The physical anchorage of gestural representation is essentially based on links of resemblance and contiguity. Once one recognizes the analogical link, and therefore a gesture’s deep physical meaning, it modifies how one interprets a gesture in a given context. For example, in the context of a narration, Palm Forwards* – the asterisk indicates where the gesture begins – could accompany the verbal utterance *elle n’↜a pas dit un mot (she didn’t say a word). The reflex action (of raising the hand, palm facing forwards, to protect the face) represented by the physical elements of this co-speech gesture communicates a deep meaning (self-protection) that underlies and clarifies the gesture’s contextual meaning (self-protective prudence). The transcript of the multimodal message could be: “fearing detrimental consequences, wisely, *she didn’t say a word”. The gesture shows the reason for the silence. From the semiotic point of view, a physical similarity between the gesture’s physical elements and the reflex action (palm forwards) creates a physical metaphor (physical self-protection). This serves to express an abstract metaphor via a transfer from the physical world (reflex of physical selfprotection) to an abstract notion (non-physical self-protective action). Let us continue with some more key concepts that underlie my inductive approach to analysing gesture data. This bottom-up approach allows one to discover how gesture functions as a semiotic system derived from our motor and perceptual experience, and how it interfaces with thought and speech production. The following terms will be used to discuss the ways in which gesture conveys meaning. A gesture that performs the function of referring to something is called a
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts 
referential gesture, and what it refers to is called the referent, which may be concrete or abstract. A gesture can exercise a referential function in two ways: indexically by designating its referent or iconically by representing it. Hence a distinction is made between a deictic gesture (reference by designation) and a representational gesture (reference by representation).
2.â•… The gestural sign in discourse A key principle that emerges from the proposed method of analysis is that a representational gesture may contain more than one gestural sign. As stated above, a gestural sign is established by an analogical link of resemblance or contiguity between a physical feature of a gesture and its contextual meaning; it displays an analogical relation of resemblance or contiguity with its referent. The contextual meaning of a gesture is the product of the interaction between the information conveyed by the gesture and that conveyed by the verbal, vocal and kinesic context in which it occurs, and the particular circumstances in which the utterance occurs. For instance, we have considered examples of the same hand configuration containing two alternative gestural signs due to two analogical links: (1) relation of resemblance between the rectangular form of Palm Forwards and a notice > contextual meaning ‘public announcement’, and (2) relation of contiguity between Palm Forwards and self-protection > contextual meaning ‘self-protective prudence’. The proposed method of analysing the gestural sign in discourse consists in identifying gestural units, then the representational gesture(s) contained within each unit, and then the gestural sign(s) contained within each gesture. These descending levels of analysis will be applied in Chapter 2. For now, it suffices to say that these stages of analysis prove to be necessary in order to gain a better understanding of what gestural expression derived from the physical world reveals about thought itself and of how the two semiotic modalities of gesture and speech co-operate to formulate and express thought.
2.1â•… Identifying gestural units How can one analyse gesture within discourse and discover the gestural sign(s) it contains? How can one divide up this continuous flow of the disparate, acoustic and visual elements that constitute multimodal communication? My analytic approach presupposes the division of discourse into temporal units on the basis of simultaneous changes in movements occurring at different levels of the body. Let us consider an example of increasing exclamation (Figure 1). The eyebrows are raised, the hand is lifted in profile, the head is tipped backwards while the voice
 Elements of meaning in gesture
ascends, signalling increasing exclamation, as it produces the verbal sequence Et Dieu sait si …! (And God only knows if…!). The temporal unit here corresponds to a kinesic ensemble that contains several kinesic units, each of which is constituted by the movement of a body part: the raised eyebrow, the hand lifted up, and the head tipped backwards. Each of these kinesic units is considered to be a gesture.
Gesture Gesture
Three kinesic units
Gesture
One temporal unit
Figure 1.╇ Identifying gestural units (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›72)
The kinesic division depends on the level of analysis adopted. The same gestural event may be interpreted on different levels of analysis, that of a kinesic ensemble (hand, eyebrows, and head all raised together in an attitude of exclamation), or a particular kinesic unit (raised eyebrows, or raised hand, or raised head), or a relevant physical feature (upward movement) that all the kinesic units have in common. It is this last level that is of particular interest for a semiotic analysis, but generally one stops at the intermediate level, that is, one focuses on the kinesic unit characterized by the movement of one body part. A temporal unit may thus include several gestures, each one of which is a composite unit. Take, for example, the gestural components of the French emblem that is a retributive retort (Figure 2). The hand (body part), closed in a fist (hand configuration), with the palm facing downwards (orientation), is placed in front of the stomach (localization) and projected forwards (movement). Can each of these gestural components (body part, configuration, orientation, localization, and movement) be a sign? This issue will be addressed in detail in Part III. For now, let us reconsider the example of increasing exclamation (Figure 1), which shows that the relevant physical feature resides in one of the gestural components: it is the upward movement common to all the gestures, to all the kinesic units in the kinesic ensemble, and each one of
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts 
them expresses the notion of ‘increase’ in the given verbal context. It is the analogical link between their common physical aspect (upward movement) and an aspect of the physical world (upward movement) that gives rise to the contextual meaning (increasing exclamation) of this kinesic ensemble. Thus, upward movement is a gestural sign contained within each of the gestures in the kinesic ensemble.
Gestural components Hand Fist Palm down Stomach Forwards
Body part Configuration Orientation Localization Movement
Movement Body part A sign ?
Localization
A sign ?
Configuration Orientation Figure 2.╇ Gestural components (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›145)
2.2â•… C haracteristics of the gestural sign demonstrated by examples of Ring gestures In order to demonstrate the characteristics of the gestural sign we shall now consider examples of gestures in which the Ring configuration of the fingers is used. The thumb and index finger united in the Ring configuration recurs in gestures in a variety of cultures. The meaning of gestures performed with the Ring configuration changes depending on the cultural group that uses it as well as on the situation in which it is used. Nevertheless, despite its polysemy from an inter-cultural perspective, we shall see that the different meanings of the gestures in which the Ring configuration recurs are all motivated.
2.2.1â•… A cultural sign In use for more than two thousand years in the Mediterranean Basin as an obscene insult, one sees this configuration of the fingers in ancient paintings or in the form of
 Elements of meaning in gesture
amulets and sculptures (Figure 3, Maltese sculpture taken from Manwatching, Morris 1977). In Malta this configuration can be used in a gesture that refers to a homosexual man. It is supposed that this is because the circular form of the ring created by the thumb and index finger refers to a hole, and in this case the hole is the anus. The same configuration used in a gesture performed by a particularly smiling and hearty monk refers to the perfect gustatory qualities of the French camembert cheese that he is advertising. In this case, the circle created by the thumb and index finger represents a complete and perfect whole. In Japan the same configuration can be used in a gesture that refers to money. In this case, the circular form of the Ring configuration is used to refer to a round object, and thus to the idea of a coin.
A cultural sign
e I
n
r
t
Japan: Money
France: Perfect!
Malta: Obscene insult Figure 3.╇ A cultural sign
The meaning of the circle depicted in this way changes according the cultural group using it. But there is always an analogical link at the root of the relationship between its form and its meaning (Fónagy 2001:â•›565). The Ring configuration is a gestural sign that is always motivated.
2.2.2╅ A contextual sign Now taking an intra-cultural perspective, in France, for example, the meaning of the Ring configuration changes according to the context of the gesture in which it occurs: according to other bodily movements and to the utterance that are �produced simultaneously, that is to say, according to the kinesic context and the verbal context.
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts  I
A contextual sign n
t
r a
Zero
Perfect! “It concerns 0.25% of families” Kinesic context
Verbal context
Figure 4.╇ A contextual sign (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›15, 21)
2.2.2.1â•… The kinesic context.â•… The Ring configuration occurs in gestures that substitute speech (Figure 4). These can mean ‘perfect’ or ‘delicious’ (positive values), or at the opposite end of the scale, ‘zero’ or ‘worthlessness’ (negative values). In the case of ‘worthlessness’, an analogical link between the form of the configuration and its meaning is maintained because the written form of zero has a circular form (0 = no value > worthlessness). It is the facial expression – smiling in the case of positive values, the sullen features and depreciatory sneer in the case of negative values – which transforms the meaning of the Ring configuration, making it shift from the most positive to the most negative expression of appreciation. The accompanying bodily movements influence the meaning ascribed to the configuration, hence, there is interaction between the concurrent kinesic units that play a role in determining its contextual meaning. It is simply the meaning of the facial expression that determines the meaning of the Ring configuration which is selected from a range of possible symbolic extrapolations that a circular form offers. 2.2.2.2â•… The verbal context.â•… The Ring configuration is also found in gestures that accompany verbal utterances, for example, “It concerns 0.25% of families” (Figure 4). In this instance, the French no longer see a circular form in the configuration but the minute contact between the nails of the thumb and index finger used to get a grip on and extract something very fine. Thus, in this instance, the Ring configuration refers to extreme precision, 0.25%, because it is the point of contact between the nails that is
 Elements of meaning in gesture
salient. The analogical link has changed to suit the verbal context and thus the gesture has a different meaning. In sum, the kinesic context and the verbal context of a gesture determine which analogical links are selected from among those that it potentially offers. Each of these links is determined by a salient feature, a relevant physical feature of the gesture in question. In the given examples of gestures in which the Ring configuration occurs (Figure 5), it is the circular shape in the case of the gestures that substitute speech that is relevant, whereas in the case of the co-speech gesture it is the minute point of contact between the nails of the thumb and index finger that is relevant. In the examples of gestures that substitute speech, the kinesic context (facial expression) selects how the relevant physical feature (circular form) of the Ring configuration is to be interpreted (negatively or positively) and thus determines its meaning. In the example of a cospeech gesture, the verbal context selects the relevant physical feature (minute point of contact) and hence its meaning.
2.2.3â•… An analogical sign Figure 5 summarizes the inter-cultural and intra-cultural perspectives of the gestures made with the Ring configuration cited above to illustrate that the gestural sign is cultural, and although its meaning changes according to the context of use, it nonetheless always remains an analogical sign. I
I
e
n n
t
r
r
An analogical sign
a
The circular form of a number France Zero
The circular form of a bodily hole
The circular form of a coin
Symbol of perfection France Perfect!
Malta Obscene insult Figure 5.╇ The gestural sign is always an analogical sign
Japan Money
Digital pincers France Precision
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts 
2.2.4â•… An isomorphic analogical sign To conclude this section on the characteristics of the gestural sign, let us consider another phenomenon that one observes: isomorphism is the term I use to describe gestural signs that share a core meaning and present graded expressions of it. Figure 6 shows four typical gestures that express decreasing degrees of threat from left to right: (1) serious threatening, (2) threatening warning, (3) warning, and (4) simple advice. One observes that there is a parallelism between the degree of threat expressed by the gesture and the form of the gesture that expresses it: the hand is (1) initially shaken, (2) simply lifted, (3) replaced by the index finger that is shaken, and then (4) simply lifted. The surface of the body part and the dynamics of the movement decrease correspondingly with the intensity of the notion expressed. This parallel attenuation on the physical and the semantic levels confirms the analogical nature of the gestural sign. One finds other instances of gestural isomorphism, for example, in gestures that express opposition (see Chapter 7, Gradational opposition).
Threat
Threatening warning
Warning
Advice
Figure 6.╇ An isomorphic analogical sign (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›36–37)
2.3â•… The symbolic relations between gestures and notions Figure 7 offers a synopsis of the relations one finds between gestures and notions. In the figure, the hand symbolizes a gesture, regardless of the body part employed, and the thought bubble symbolizes an idea or a notion. On the left-hand side, the perspective of one gesture is shown, and on the right-hand side, the perspective of one notion. Figure 7 shows that one gesture may represent several notions, alternatively or simultaneously (left side). As we have seen in the case of gestures with the Ring
 Elements of meaning in gesture
� configuration, a gesture may dispose of a range of alternative notions that it can represent, one of which is selected according to the situation in which it occurs; hence it is polysemous (upper-left section). If a gesture simultaneously represents several notions, it is a polysign (lower-left section). Inversely, several gestures may represent one notion, alternatively or simultaneously (right side). In order to express a notion, one may have the choice of performing one gesture among several alternatives that employ the hand(s) or other body parts; these are gesture variants that can represent the same notion (upper-right section). Or one can perform several gestures with different body parts simultaneously in a kinesic ensemble to represent the same notion. In this case, I talk about a cumulative variant (lower-right section).
One gesture represents different notions
Different gestures represent One notion
Alternatively
Alternatively or
or or
or
& & & Simultaneously
& Simultaneously
symbolizes a gesture made by any body part symbolizes a notion Figure 7.╇ Gestures and notions
We shall examine each of these perspectives on how gestures and notions may relate to each other in detail in Part III. Here, a brief introduction to the concepts involved in analysing examples of each case is given. Let us begin with the section on the right-hand side of the diagram, with the gesture variants of ‘negation’.
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts 
2.3.1â•… Several gestures represent one notion: Variation 2.3.1.1â•… Gesture variants and cumulative variants.â•… Figure 8 details the right-hand side of Figure 7. It presents three gesture variants that express negation by simulating stopping or a repulsion (left), an avoidance (middle), or a retreat (right). Each variant reproduces a reflex of protection: the hand stops or repulses; the head avoids; the torso is thrust backwards. The fourth and final variant cumulates six gestures of negation derived from reflexes by adding facial expressions to the three preceding gestures of the hand, head, and torso: man grimaces in disgust, a reflex of vomiting, and he automatically closes his eyes and frowns in order to protect the eyes (for a detailed discussion of this topic see Chapter 8, The semantics of physical refusal). The fourth variant of negation in Figure 8 cumulates physical expressions of negation just like the kinesic ensemble presented in Figure 1 cumulates physical expressions of increasing exclamation. The impact of these cumulative variants is found on the semantic level in both cases: a greater degree of refusal and exclamation. This proportional variation in gestural and symbolic expression is similar to the observation of gestural isomorphism indicated above (Figure 6).
Figure 8.╇ Gesture variants (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›89, 118, 119, 123)
2.3.2â•… One gesture represents several notions: Polysemy and polysign Now we shall view the symbolic relations maintained between gestures and notions by taking the perspective of one gesture (Figure 7, left-hand side). First we shall consider the polysemous gesture (upper-left section) and then the polysign gesture (lower-left section). All the gestures quoted in this section are made with a clenched fist.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
2.3.2.1â•… The polysemous gesture.â•… The polysemous gesture represents one notion from a range of other possibilities according to the situation. By way of example, let us consider seven French speakers expressing themselves with a clenched fist. They are (1) a pianist, (2) an ethnologist in his garden, (3) a professor of business studies, (4) a philosopher, (5) the professor of business studies once again, (6) a technician, and (7) a professor of psychology. As we shall see, each gesture expresses a different notion according to its context, but in all cases the clenched fist establishes an analogical link that reveals the motivation of the gestural sign contained in the gesture. The first three gestures all have one analogical link in common: the physical strength of the fist. The text in italics indicates the duration of the gesture. 1 The pianist is talking about the role of the left hand in Beethoven’s music: [left fist] La main gauche, c↜’est une, c’↜est une, comme ça, une, une présence d’↜éner [opens] énergétique. (video 1)3 [left fist] The left hand, it’s a, it’s a, like that, a, a presence of ener [opens] energetic.4 2
[right fist] Je me suis obligée tous les jours (video 2) [right fist] I forced myself every day
3 [both fists] Parce que je pense que on ne peut pas, passée la cinquantaine, ne pas s↜’occuper des jeunes citoyens. (video 3) [both fists] Because I think that one can’t, once past fifty, not do something for young citizens.
Here we have gestures expressing (1) physical strength, (2) psychological strength, and (3) the strength of a moral value respectively. The fist is strong, as is the gesture .â•… As indicated at the end of the Table of contents, videos of many of the examples of cospeech gestures analysed in this book can be viewed on the John Benjamins’ website. The videos are numbered 1–75 and follow the order in which the examples are analysed in the book. .â•… French and English word order differ. In this example, and in other examples in this book, to retain the order in which the speaker’s ideas are expressed, the translation of the transcription mirrors French word order as closely as possible. Here, the speaker begins to say “présence d’↜énergie” (presence of energy) then hesitates, reformulates and completes his verbal utterance with the adjective “énergétique” (energetic). In French, in most cases, adjectives follow the nouns they qualify, whereas in English they do not. Hence, “présence énergétique” complies with the normal French word order, whereas the English word order would be ‘energetic presence’. Further instances in which differences in word order may be relevant in view of the co-speech gesture produced will be indicated by a short footnote that gives the normal English word order of the translated transcript.
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts 
that employs this hand configuration. The natural strength of the fist is the analogical link established between a physical feature of the gesture (hand configuration) and its contextual meaning (strength). The context determines whether the type of strength expressed is physical, psychological, or that of a moral value. The polysemy of the fist in the last two cases is due to semantic derivation: their meanings are derived from the analogical link of physical strength. The fist hand configuration offers a second analogical link: the hand clenched in a fist can hold firmly on to an imaginary object, a weapon, for example: 4 The left-handed philosopher explains: [palm of left hand facing upwards, clenched in a fist, and moved brusquely forwards] Je faisais du fleuret [opens] avec la main gauche. (video 4) [palm of left hand facing upwards, clenched in a fist, and moved brusquely forwards] I used to fence [left fist opens] with the left hand. 5 The professor of business studies is criticizing a type of training: Il est clair que ça nous fabrique [right fist brusquely lowered diagonally] des petits tueurs. (video 5) It’s clear that it produces for us [right fist brusquely lowered diagonally] little killers. The sense is metaphorical here. A third possible analogical link is deduced from everyday life: the hand clenched in a fist can wrap around an object enclosed in the hand and thus evoke the idea of enclosing an object, be it concrete or abstract:
6 A technician referring to the air-conditioning system in the Musée d’↜Orsay is talking about vast reservoirs qui vont permettre [clenched fists] de stocker l’eau glacée (video 6) which will enable [clenched fists] (us) to store chilled water 7 A psychologist interviewed at home is talking about educational assessment: [left fist lifts up] tellement c’était un [before falling again, reopened, on the sofa] un secret bien gardé (video 7) [left fist lifts up] it was such a [before falling again, reopened, on to the sofa] a closely guarded secret Table 1 gives an overview of how Examples 1–7 elucidate the polysemy of the fist. This hand configuration potentially contains three analogical links since it is strong, it can hold something firmly, and it can enclose something. A natural weapon, it can represent all kinds of strength (Examples 1, 2, 3). As it enables one to hold an object to be manipulated with force, it can refer to all objects capable of being manipulated in the same manner (Examples 4, 5). Able to enclose an object, it can refer to all enclosed things (Examples 6, 7), whether it be chilled water stored in reservoirs (concrete object) or a well-kept secret (abstract object). In other words, originating
 Elements of meaning in gesture
from our motor or perceptual experience, gestures that employ the fist configuration contain several possible analogical links and each one of them can be the object of a semantic derivation. A polysemous hand configuration can thus support different analogical links, each one of which can branch out to several notions via semantic derivation. The context determines the choice of both the analogical link and semantic derivation. Table 1.╇ The polysemous fist configuration Analogical links The fist is strong: holds firmly: encloses:
In different contexts: (1) physical strength (4) a sword
Semantic derivation
(2) psychological strength (5) a dagger
(3) moral strength
(6) water in a (7) a closely guarded secret reservoir
Any type of strength Any handled physical object A real or an abstract object
2.3.2.2â•… The polysign gesture.â•… We have just seen how one configuration of the hand(s) or fingers may be able to evoke one notion among several possible alternative notions depending on the situation. But one gesture may also represent several notions simultaneously because more than one of its components has an analogical link and, thus, it contains more than one gestural sign. In this case it is a polysign gesture. The gesture made with the fist configuration in Example 7 above – [raised fist] it was such a, a closely guarded secret (video 7) – is in fact a polysign. Table 2 shows that the raised fist signifies how well a secret has been guarded by simultaneously representing ‘enclosure’ via the fist configuration and ‘increasing exclamation’ via the upward movement. It contains two signifying gestural components: the configuration and the movement. Each of them supports an analogical link. Each one is a gestural sign. Hence the gesture is a polysign. Table 2.╇ The polysign gesture Speech:
[raised fist] it was such a, a closely guarded secret
Gestural components: Analogical links: Meanings of the gesture:
Configuration: Fist
Movement: Upward
>
Raised fist
Enclosure Enclosed object
More is up Increasing exclamation
>
Very well enclosed
Gestural sign 1
Gestural sign 2
>
A polysign gesture
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts 
2.3.2.3╅ The polysemous polysign gesture.╅ Up to now, we have seen examples of gestures in which the fist configuration is polysemous, including an example of a polysign gesture (Example 7) in which both the fist configuration and the upward movement are relevant physical features. But can a polysign gesture be polysemous? It is sufficient that more than one gestural component is polysemous for their polysign product to become polysemous. This is the case in which the fist moves forwards. The range of potential meanings offered by the fist moving forwards is given in Table 3. Table 3.╇ The polysemous polysign gesture Configuration
Movement
Configuration & Movement
Fist
Forwards
Fist moves forwards
Physical, psychological strength
Towards something Against an opposing force Temporal progression
Will Effort Strength Strength
Forwards Towards something Temporal progression Against an opposing force
(1) Will to go forwards (2) Effort towards a goal (3) Strength & Modernism (4) Strength to attack
We know that the fist can represent strength, physical or psychological. As for movement forwards, it is eminently ambiguous. As a rule, one advances towards something or against an opposing force. The progression represented along this axis is both temporal and spatial. Consequently, the different combinations of notions that these gestural components can evoke are themselves multiple. The notions of ‘will’, on the one hand, and ‘progression’, on the other, combine to represent ‘the will to advance’ (1). The notions of ‘effort’ and ‘progression towards a goal’ become allied to represent the effort required to reach a goal (2). The combination of the notions of ‘strength’ and ‘temporal progression’ results in the idea of ‘strength and modernism’ (3). Finally, the representation of ‘strength’ allied with a ‘progression against an opposing force’ amounts to the ‘strength to attack’ (4). Thus, different combinations of the notions that a gesture has the potential to express can result in it expressing a diverse range of contextual meanings. These few examples elucidate the semantic structure of gesture. Numerous contextual meanings can depend on a few physical elements that support more than one analogical link, each of which may be subject to semantic derivation. Referring back to Figure 7, a summary of the relations between gestures and notions is given in Figure 9. First let us consider the relations viewed from the perspective of a gesture. If one gesture can represent several notions that occur alternatively, i.e. it can convey different meanings on different occasions of use due to a common
 Elements of meaning in gesture
physical feature with multiple sources of motivation, then it is polysemous (Table 1). On the other hand, if a gesture expresses several meanings simultaneously on a given occasion of use, then it is a polysign gesture (Table 2). And, as we have seen, a polysign gesture may be polysemous (Table 3). Let us now consider the relations viewed from the perspective of a notion. One notion can be represented by several gestures that occur alternatively, i.e. if different gestures serve to express the same notion on different occasions of use, then they are called gesture variants (Figure 8, upper section). If they occur simultaneously in a kinesic ensemble, then they constitute a cumulative variant (Figure 8, lower section).
Semantic diversity
Physical diversity
One gesture represents different notions
Different gestures represent One notion
Alternatively
Alternatively Polysemous gesture
Gesture variants
Polysign
Cumulative variant
Simultaneously
Simultaneously
Figure 9.╇ Relations between gestures and notions
2.4â•… Interaction between the phenomena of variation and polysemy The physical features of gestures that convey meaning according to their context of use are said to correspond to elements of meaning because they create semantic constructions via analogical links, rather like the elements of a Meccano kit that can be pieced together to create a variety of objects. In the above section, it was explained how one gesture may be polysemous, on the one hand, and how one notion may be expressed by gesture variants, on the other (Figure 9). But there may be interaction between the phenomena of polysemy and variation. This interaction allows us to discover the analogical link. Let us look at an example. Figure 10 shows that shaking the head* is polysemous in France: as a speech substitute it can express ‘negation’, and as a co-speech gesture it can express ‘totality’ and/or ‘approximation’. 8 Negation: *Ca n’a jamais été un problème. (*That has never been a problem.) (video 8) Approximation: *Environ (*About) (video 9) Totality: *Tout le monde (*Everyone) (video 10)
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts  One gesture represents different notions Totality
Different gestures represent One notion Totality
Negation
Approximation or
or
Head shake
Head or Hand or Digits: transverse movement = ‘Everywhere’
Figure 10.╇ Polysemy and variation
2.4.1â•… How to find the analogical link How can one discover the analogical link inherent to each of these three contextual meanings of the head shake? The answer lies in comparing the gesture variants that represent each notion. All those that express ‘totality’ are characterized by a transverse movement: 9 Alors depuis on les suit [transverse head movement, to the right] partout [repeated, to the left] partout Well since then one follows them [transverse head movement, to the right] everywhere [repeated, to the left] everywhere 10 Patrick Sebastien, il est sympathique, [lateral head shake] il est bourré de talent. Patrick Sebastien, he’s nice [lateral head shake] he’s got loads of talent. [lateral head shake] Tout le monde (Everyone) (video 10) 11 [transverse movement of the horizontal palm facing downwards] Je suis tout à fait d’accord. (I’m completely in agreement.) (video 11) 12 [transverse movement of the Ring configuration] à toutes les élections (at all the elections) (video 12) 13 [transverse symmetrical movement of the Frame configuration: palms Â�facing each other in the sagittal plane, fingers pointing forwards] pour toute une jeunesse (for all the younger generation) (video 13)
What is the analogical relation between the transverse movement common to all these gestures and the notion of ‘totality’? It is reference to the horizon, i.e. ‘everywhere’ concretely represented by the gaze sweeping across the horizon (in a single or a repeated
 Elements of meaning in gesture
head movement), or by the palm covering it from one side to the other (using one hand or both hands symmetrically). But if this is the case, then why is the transverse movement performed with the Ring configuration in Example 12 and with the Frame configuration in Example 13. The answer given below reveals another phenomenon, the influence of the preceding gesture.
2.4.2â•… Gestural sequencing Let us examine the gestures in Examples 12 and 13 in their contexts. (12.1) and (13.1) indicate the gestures that precede the gestures accompanying the second part of the sentence (12.2) and (13.2) respectively. Example 12 (video 14): 12.1 Je serai un opposant, mais résolu [thumb and index finger form the Ring configuration (representing ‘precision’, ‘rigour’)], j’allais presque dire systématique contre la proportionnelle, et ce I will be an opponent, but [a] resolute [thumb and index finger form the Ring configuration (representing ‘precision’, ‘rigour’)], I was almost going to say [a] systematic [one] against the proportional system, and this 12.2 [transverse movement, (representing ‘totality’)] à toutes les élections (at all the elections) Example 13 (video 15): 13.1 pour permettre en réalité ce mode pédagogique moderne [Frame configuration (depicting a defined object) displaced to the left] qui est l’↜enseignement théorique [then to the right] et l’↜enseignement pratique [re-centred, opens] parallèles to allow in reality this modern pedagogical method [Frame configuration (depicting a defined object) displaced to the left] which is theoretical teaching [then to the right] and practical teaching [re-centred, opens] parallel 13.2 [opened again in a transverse symmetrical movement (representing ‘totality’)] pour toute une jeunesse (for all the younger generation) In (12.2) the transverse movement of the Ring configuration follows a gesture with the same hand configuration that expresses the notion of ‘rigour’ in (12.1) during “and I was almost going to say [a] systematic [one] against the proportional system, and this”. In (13.2) the symmetrical transverse movement of the opening Frame configuration follows a succession of gestures with the same hand configuration that expresses the idea of ‘defined and parallel teaching methods’ in (13.1). In both examples, gesture (.2) depends on gesture (.1). One therefore has to regard the preceding gesture as forming part of the kinesic context of the gesture that one is
Chapter 1.╇ The gestural sign and related key concepts 
studying. The kinesic context encompasses preceding and simultaneously occurring gestures. Both the sequence and the simultaneity of the movements performed determine the kinesic context. In Examples 12 and 13, is the hand configuration maintained for a semantic or a physical reason? Perhaps it is just easier to maintain it rather than let the hand relax? It seems that it is for a semantic reason in both cases. In Example 12, the systematic opposition and the rigour apply to all the elections. Likewise in Example 13, the two parallel teaching methods concern an entire generation of young people. The hand configuration is maintained insofar as the notion that it represents concerns the other semantic elements that are being represented. The gestural representation of the idea is maintained as long as the idea lasts. Readers may recognize here what McNeill calls catchment (McNeill et al. 2001:â•›11). I shall return to this topic later (see Chapter 9, An aid to verbalization). Following Saussure (1916), the differences between signs determine their meaning, and one identifies the analogical links in gestural signs by comparing gestures on the paradigmatic (vertical) axis of substitution and on the syntagmatic (horizontal) axis of combination. The results of the above comparisons, both on the paradigmatic axis (gesture variants expressing ‘totality’) and on the syntagmatic axis (gestural sequencing), show that one deduces the analogical link(s) from the relevant physical feature(s) of the gesture in question. The relevant feature that supports the analogical link is the physical element that is common to the gesture variants used to represent the notion (paradigmatic axis) and the physical element that is new in the sequence of gestures accompanying the verbal units (syntagmatic axis), as shown in Figure 11. In Examples 12 and 13, the relevant physical feature is transverse movement. Gesture variants Common physical element
Paradigmatic axis
Analogical link
Relevant physical feature
Syntagmatic axis
New physical element
Gesture sequence
Figure 11.╇ The analogical link
In summary, a number of key concepts and issues that are central to understanding how gesture signifies have been introduced in this chapter. It began with a discussion of how our physical experience of interacting with our environment may give rise
 Elements of meaning in gesture
to forms of expression found in representational gestures. It was proposed that both the encoding and the decoding of a representational gesture imply metaphoric and/or metonymic cognitive processes that are inspired by links of resemblance or contiguity between what we experience in the physical world and the gestures we perform. These analogical links establish gestural signs that enable gestures to convey meaning. In order to establish what a gesture means in context, the necessity of taking into account its verbal context and its kinesic context was highlighted. The various ways in which gestural signs maintain symbolic relations between gestures and notions were then considered: One notion may be represented by different gestures, which gives rise to gesture variants and cumulative variants. Inversely, one gesture may represent different notions, which gives rise to polysemous gestures and polysigns. Finally, in order to discover the analogical links supporting the gestural signs contained in a polysemous gesture it is necessary to examine the gesture variants of each notion it expresses using examples selected from one’s corpus. We shall see how one does this in Chapter 8. A principal aim of this chapter was to introduce the concept of the analogical link that establishes the gestural sign from its roots in our physical experience to its appearance at the core of gestural expression. In the next chapter we shall turn our attention to particular functions of gesture in order to explain how referential gestures may be identified. This will enable us to see how representational co-speech gestures link up with the notions they convey.
part i
The functions of gesture in relation to speech
Our aim is to understand what and how gesture signifies when we speak. This is why, having indicated my method for analysing the gestural sign in Chapter 1, we shall now focus on the specific functions that gesture performs in relation to speech production. The first of these is the demarcative function: in association with the voice, gesture segments discourse by splitting the speech chain into semantic units and subunits (Chapter 2). As it is also a supplier of gestural signs, it performs a referential function (Chapter 3). Identifying this referential function will enable us to see how the information conveyed by gesture is integrated with that conveyed by speech. We are only concerned here with the functions of gesture that have a direct relation to speech production. For a wider discussion of how gestures may be classified according to their communicative functions, the reader is referred to Efron 1941, Ekman and Friesen 1969, McNeill and Levy 1982; Cosnier 1982, and to Kendon 2004a (p. 84–107) for a comparative and critical analysis of existing classifications of gestures.
chapter 2
The demarcative function of gesture Gesture performs a variety of functions in communication. When it accompanies speech, it assumes specific functions in relation to what is being said. This chapter begins by discussing these functions with reference to the sensory modalities that people use to convey information when they are speaking, i.e. the visual-gestural and audio-oral modalities (Multimodal communication). But the audio-oral modality uses two different communication channels, the vocal and the verbal channels. Particular emphasis will be given to the nonverbal aspects of such utterances (Nonverbal aspects of multimodal communication) and how each channel may serve more than one function (The multifunctionnality of each communication channel). Then, by analysing a fairly long example of an utterance in detail, we shall examine how units of gesture correlate with segments of the speech stream that it accompanies (The demarcative function of gesture in association with the voice). We shall see how concurrent changes of movement in different parts of the speaker’s body Â�correlate with melodic changes of his voice. This orchestration of concurrent change in the kinesic and the vocal channels during speech production hierarchically segments discourse into ideational units (level 1), rhythmic-semantic units (level 2), which can be further divided into words (level 3) (Hierarchic segmentation of discourse). It is maintained that the demarcative function is constantly in operation whenever gesture accompanies speech, and that it is necessary to examine the demarcative function of gesture because our understanding of it will enable us to identify gestures with a Â�referential function. For example, we shall look at the movement component of particular instances of gesture to see if it only performs a demarcative function, or if it also serves to refer to something by representing it and is, therefore, a component of a representational gesture. To conclude this section on the segmentation of discourse, prosodic and kinesic recurrence will be considered as a choreography, and two instances will be examined (Recurrence in segmentation of discourse).
1.â•… Multimodal communication As stated in the Introduction, by the term multimodal communication I mean all the oral features of spoken language and all the kinesic features of bodily movement that
 Elements of meaning in gesture
play a role in communication. To communicate with someone is, essentially, to share the same codes of behaviour, a phenomenon that ethnologists constantly observe in their fieldwork. Gesture is part of communication. Sapir (1927/1949:â•›137) wrote: We respond to gestures with an extreme alertness and, one might almost say, in accordance with an elaborate and secret code that is written nowhere, known by none, and understood by all. But this code is by no means referable to simple organic responses. On the contrary, it is as finely certain and artificial, as definitely a creation of social tradition, as language or religion or industrial technology. Like everything else in human conduct, gesture roots in the reactive necessities of the organism, but the laws of gesture, the unwritten code of gestured messages and responses, is the anonymous work of an elaborate social tradition.
Developments of ethnologists’ works have given rise to sociological approaches to communication, such as the systemic-pragmatic paradigm of Bateson and the Palo Alto school, Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology, Hymes’ ethnography of communication, and Goffman’s microsociology of communication practices. A synthesis of these approaches is given by Winkin (1981) in La nouvelle communication, where he selects and presents the most important papers of Bateson, Birdwhistell, Goffman, Hall, Jackson, Scheflen, Sigman, and Watzlawick, while Kendon shows how these different approaches articulate with one another in Chapter 2 of his Conducting Interaction (Kendon 1990:â•›15–49). Gesture is part of the language communication system. The approach taken by ethologists, who are familiar with animal communication systems, enables one to understand that the fundamental criterion of language resides in the existence of a conventional link between signals and their referents and not in the modality – tactile, gestural, visual, vocal, or verbal – of the signals. Language extends far beyond the verbal system alone. In their introductory article to La communication non verbale, Cosnier and Brossard (1984) wrote: Language no longer appears to be a purely acoustic realization but a heterogeneous communication process /…/ The multimodality of human communication has of course been recognized for a long time. In classical rhetoric a chapter was consecrated to “action”, i.e. to the roles of the voice and bodily expression in the art of oratory, taking up ideas formulated by Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian … but it is in the contemporary era that the concept of multichannel communication has been enlarged, specified and supported by the reflections and the works of ethologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and the ‘psy’ (psychologists and psychiatrists).1
.â•… “Le langage n’apparaît plus comme étant de pure réalisation acoustique, mais comme un procédé de communication hétérogène /…/ La multicanalité de la communication humaine
Chapter 2.╇ The demarcative function of gesture 
Gesture, as Kendon (1972, 1980) and McNeill (1992), for example, have long observed, is an integral part of utterance.2 Not only does it seem to serve the interaction, the reception of the message by an interlocutor, but also message production. From a distance, one can easily identify the person who is speaking in the midst of a group; it is the one who is moving. Every speaker moves, even on the telephone or in an interpreting booth. Why does he utilize the visual-gestural modality even though his interlocutor cannot see him? Is it because gesture participates in the acoustic realization of the message to be communicated? To try and answer this question, let us look at how nonverbal communication is transmitted. Let us see if there are possibilities for substitution between the audio-oral and the visual-gestural modalities when executing given communicative functions, or if there are possibilities for their cooperation.
1.1â•… Nonverbal aspects of multimodal communication Multimodal communication essentially utilizes the audio-oral and visual-gestural modalities and is therefore actually bimodal. However, one distinguishes between the senses involved in message reception (audio- and visual-), and those involved in message production and in proprioception (-oral and -gestural), under the control of hearing and sight respectively. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of communication, one opposes verbal to nonverbal communication. Does the latter only utilize the visual-gestural modality? We shall see that this is not the case. This finding will lead to a distinction being made within the audio-oral modality between the verbal channel and the vocal channel that transmits acoustic nonverbal messages. Communication thus utilizes two sensory modalities (audio-oral and visual-gestural) and three channels (verbal, vocal and kinesic) if one takes into account the important distinction on the semiotic level between verbal and nonverbal communication. Table 4 shows this differentiation
avait certes été reconnue depuis longtemps. Un chapitre de la rhétorique classique était consacré à “l’action”, c’est-à-dire aux rôles de la voix et de l↜’expression corporelle dans l’art oratoire, reprenant des idées formulées par Aristote, Cicéron, Quintilien… mais c’est à l’↜époque contemporaine que la conception de la communication multicanale a été élargie, précisée et étayée par les réflexions et les travaux des éthologues, des anthropologues, des sociologues, et des ‘psy’ (psychologues et psychiatres).” (Cosnier & Brossard 1984:â•›2–3). Translation MC. .â•… The multimodality of communication evolves from childhood onwards. J.-M. Colletta (2004) has documented a truly multimodal development in the storytelling skills of children between the ages of 6 and 11 years. And Capirci et al. (2005) show that, from birth onwards, there is continuity between the production of the first action schemes, the first gestures, and the first words produced by Italian children between the ages of 1 and 2 years. The development pattern is the same during the transition from 1 to 2-word utterances in the American children observed by Butcher & Goldin-Meadow (2000).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
between communication achieved via the uttered text (verbal channel), the rhythmic movement of the voice (vocal channel), and the body (kinesic channel). The kinesic channel transmits various kinds of information since it includes postural changes, facial expressions, as well as arm and head movements. Cosnier (1982) groups these movements of different body parts together under the practical French term ‘posturo-mimo-gestualité’ (postural-facial gesturality). Thus, nonverbal communication is simultaneously vocal and kinesic as it utilizes the audio-oral and visual-gestural modalities in parallel. We can see that the vocal channel, as the conveyor of acoustic nonverbal signs, occupies a pivotal role: nonverbal communication is achieved on the telephone thanks to vocal noises, to the tone, intensity and melodic movement of the voice. This aspect of nonverbal communcation concurs with Fónagy’s concept of ‘double coding in speech’ (Fónagy 1971:â•›189–222): the first coding is linguistic and transforms a message into a sequence of phonemes; the second coding is paralinguistic and coincides with the pronunciation of the phonemes, during which a secondary message based on a natural pre-linguistic code is grafted on to the primary message (Fónagy 1983:â•›14). “This can be in relation to the fact that the organs of speech were not originally intended to convey linguistic messages, but to fulfil certain biological functions”3 (Fónagy 1983:â•›23). Table 4.╇ Aspects of multimodal communication Modality Channel Communication Sign audiooral
verbal
verbal
audiooral
vocal
nonverbal
visualgestural
kinesic
nonverbal
Characteristics
verbal
conventional + invariant discrete arbitrary extrinsic nonverbal conventional + probabilistic continuous motivated intrinsic nonverbal conventional + probabilistic continuous motivated intrinsic
The encoding principle of nonverbal communication differs from that of verbal communication. The nonverbal sign presents a natural relation of contiguity or resemblance between its physical aspect and its referent. It is motivated (see Introduction), in opposition to the verbal sign, which is arbitrary in that there is no natural
.â•… “Ceci peut être en rapport avec le fait que les organes de la parole n’↜étaient pas destinés initialement à véhiculer des messages linguistiques, mais à remplir certaines fonctions biologiques.” (Fónagy 1983:â•›23). Translation MC.
Chapter 2.╇ The demarcative function of gesture 
relation of contiguity or resemblance between the sound pattern of a word and its referent, unless it is onomatopoeic. But regardless of whether it is motivated or arbitrary, whether it presents an analogical link or not, every sign is understood only by the members of a given language community. A sign is specific to a cultural group; it is always conventional. Following Scherer (1980), the nonverbal sign is part of the referent it signifies; it results from intrinsic encoding. For example, in order to gesturally signify a stop, you physically stop the palm held in front of you, facing away from the body, thus turning it into a real barrier. In contrast, the word ‘stop’ results from an arbitrary social convention and, therefore, extrinsic encoding. Furthermore: The relationship between sign and referent can be invariant (sign always signals presence of referent) or probabilistic (sign signals presence of referent only for portions of encoders or decoders or instances of use). For example, whereas the linguistic sign chair always refers to a more or less comfortable piece of furniture to sit on (invariant coding), an eyeblink may not always be a signal of secret collusion but only in a certain percentage of the cases in which it occurs. In other cases an insect may have attempted to enter the sender’s eye, or other events may have caused the eye blinking. Thus, the encoding is probabilistic, and the receiver has to decode probabilistically. (Scherer 1980:â•›227)
Similarly, on the vocal level, clearing one’s throat can be a sign of disapproval, a symptom of irritation, or a reflex reaction at the onset of a throat infection, depending on the context. Thus, one proceeds from the reflex to the sign: smoothly shifting from the physical irritation to the symptom of psychological irritation (psychosomatic reaction), then to the conscious and voluntary sign which is an allusion to the irritation provoked by the interlocutor or third party of whom one disapproves. The nonverbal sign – kinesic or vocal – is probabilistic. The context indicates, for example, if the gesture should be perceived as a physical phenomenon, a symptom, or a sign. Many nonverbal signs are encoded in a graded or continuous way in that their intensity or extensiveness may vary according to the quality or magnitude of the respective referent, thus allowing subtle distinctions to be communicated. For example, you can modulate a gesture that indicates stopping by holding up a flat palm in front of you either brusquely or in a gradual manner, depending on whether you wish to evoke a brusque or a gradual stop. The equivalent verbal encoding would be discrete in that you would have to use at least two separate words, for example, ‘abrupt’ and ‘stop’ to signify an abrupt stop. Moreover, a verbal sign decomposes into further discrete units. One talks about the ‘double articulation’ (Martinet 1949/1962) of the verbal sign (or ‘duality of patterning’ as it is often referred to) because the distinctive minimal units of meaning, i.e. morphemes, that compose the French word arrêt-ez (stop-you), for example, can be broken down into distinctive minimal units of sound with no meaning, i.e. phonemes [a r e t e].
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Scherer opposes the verbal sign to the nonverbal, vocal or gestural sign, and for clarity’s sake, he defines their respective characteristics by using opposing terms. Note their equivalence with the characteristics of the gestural sign presented in Chapter 1: a gestural sign drawn from physical experience (probalistic sign), an analogical sign (intrinsic sign), and an isomorphic analogical sign (continuous sign). Table 4 shows that utterance production synthesizes two conventional but different principles of signification that complement each other, as Scherer (1980) concisely states: Whereas most verbal signs are coded extrinsically, discretely, and invariantly, many nonverbal signs are coded intrinsically, continuously, and probabilistically. These differences in the type of coding point to the possibility that verbal and nonverbal signs have differential utility for the transmission of specific types of information. (Scherer 1980:â•›228)
Whether vocal or gestural, the nonverbal sign is motivated and differs completely from the verbal sign. This is the reason for Birdwhistell’s (1970) failure in his attempt to apply the framework of linguistic analysis and the duality-of-patterning principle governing the discrete verbal sign to the study of gestures serving oral communication. He did not take into account gestures used in everyday life or the logical possibility of finding these again, stylized, as signs that evoke their precursors.
1.2â•… The multifunctionality of each communication channel Speaking serves different communicative functions. Bühler (1934) distinguishes three main functions that each spoken utterance fulfils, although one function typically predominates. An utterance may predominantly give indications about the speaker’s feelings (Ausdruck: expression), influence the recipient (Appell: appeal), or focus on the object, on what is being talked about (Darstellung: representation). For example, “I’m sad” exemplifies the expressive function, “What do you think?” the appeal or conative function, and “It was a lie” the representational or referential function.4 Jakobson (1960:â•›355–357) adds the phatic function, which focuses on the communication channel, and thus on the establishment, maintenance and control of the contact between interlocutors, for example, “Well (the other day she told me that …)”. Communicationally, gesture can do just as much as speech. It can serve all of the functions quoted above, that are indicated in Table 5 by the presence of a horizontal line. For example, gesture can serve the expressive function by pouting one’s lips to express doubt, the conative function by interjecting with one’s chin and gaze, eyebrows raised, towards the recipient, the referential function by drawing a circle to represent a
.â•… ‘Conative’ and ‘referential’ are the equivalent respective terms used by Jakobson (1960).
Chapter 2.╇ The demarcative function of gesture 
collectivity, and the phatic function by moving one’s hand towards the recipient whilst saying “Well, (the other day …)”. Moreover, when accompanying speech, gesture also serves functions connected with speech rhythm (demarcative function) and speech formulation (predictive function). Table 5.╇ The multifunctionality of each communication channel Channel
Communicative functions
Utterance functions
expressive
conative
referential
phatic
verbal
___
___
___
___
vocal
___
___
kinesic
___
___
___
demarcative
___
___
___
___
predictive
___
Voice and gesture associate in a vocal-kinesic dynamic to segment the speech stream into rhythmic-semantic groups. Without their demarcative function, a verbal utterance would be an atonic sequence of phonemes. Calbris and Montredon (1980) show also how the voice and gesture collaborate to express emotions or attitudes, such as doubt, surprise, or irony. Thus, the voice and gesture in concert serve both the demarcative function and the expressive function. But gesture, just on its own, can evoke a notion. It can also serve a referential function. However, as we shall see later, when gesture evokes a notion or a concept, the concept it evokes is something that is expressed in anticipation of the same or a related idea that is expressed in words. The referential function of gesture may thus be linked to its predictive function. This topic will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 9. But for the moment, before examining the interaction between the referential functions of gesture and speech respectively, we have to see how one identifies the referential function of gesture in instances of multimodal communication.
2.â•… The demarcative function of gesture in association with the voice 2.1â•… Hierarchic segmentation of discourse Let us examine Example 14 to see how the organization of a speaker’s hand and body movements while he is talking is such that it provides a segmentation of the speech chain that correlates with the succession of ideas presented. In this example, a chief technician, looking straight into the camera, is explaining how an air-conditioning system works. The passage analysed here comes at the end of his explanation:
14 …qui est un système de de stockage de l’énergie à l↜’aide de de vastes réservoirs qui vont permettre de stocker l’eau glacée et de façon à la restituer pendant les les périodes d’↜élévation de température, de façon à
 Elements of meaning in gesture
gérer au mieux toutes les pointes, tous tous les surcoûts qui peuvent provenir euh de de l’utilisation inadaptée euh de de de l’↜énergie électrique etc. Donc tout cela a été recherché derrière le décor. (video 16). … which is a system of of storing energy with the help of of vast reservoirs which will enable chilled water to be stored and in a way that it can be released during the the periods of high temperature, in a way that we can best manage all the peaks, all all the overloads which can arise er from from the (lit.) ill-adapted utilisation er of of of electrical energy5 etc. So all that has been researched behind the decor. In order to analyse an example such as this, one begins by turning off the sound to help one to focus one’s attention on the kinesic activity. It is by registering the purely visual segmentation of an utterance, which does not necessarily correspond to its linguistic segmentation, that the succession of ideas it contains becomes clearly apparent. Initially, one identifies the largest gestural units, which may be subsequently analysed into smaller ones. To do this, the method of analysis consists in locating repetitions and movement changes, as well as the co-occurrence of movement changes at different levels of the body.
2.1.1â•… Kinesic segmentation of discourse into ideational units Example 14 begins in the middle of a sentence that ends simultaneously with a posture change (end of paragraph) as well as a gestural pause (end of sentence). Gestural pauses also delimit the final sentence. Both sentences are divided up into smaller verbal units that correlate with aspects of the speaker’s gestures. Which kinetic features correspond to this level of discourse organization and what characterizes the units that are produced? By noting the co-occurrence of changes on the level of the hands and eye gaze, one can see a distinct and systematic phenomenon that is repeated eight times. There are several instances of the hands joining together, and at every return to their rest position (||) the speaker’s gaze shifts slightly to the left (>), then comes back quite quickly to look fixedly at the interlocutor (•).6 Bearing this in mind, we can see .â•… Sometimes the supply of electricty is insufficient to meet the demand. .â•… This phenomenon has been confirmed by Bouvet and Morel who, in their microanalysis of one minute of conversation, study postural-facial-gestural markers in conjunction with intonational cues and the morpho-syntactic organization of the dialogue (2002:â•›130). Reported by Cook (1977) and first observed by Kendon (1967), the phenomenon of speakers directing their gaze away from interlocutors, which one also finds during moments of hesitation, has been interpreted by Exline and Winters (1966) as a way of avoiding the effects of distraction during conceptualization or formulation searches. Experiments confirm this with respect to gaze direction and speech disfluency in conversation: “Regardless of the language used, subjects spoke less fluently when required to gaze at their addressee, than when they gazed fixedly at an inanimate object or allowed to gaze where they chose [sic].” Chiu, Hong & Krauss (2001:â•›2).
Chapter 2.╇ The demarcative function of gesture 
that coordinated movements of the hand and the eye in Example 14 effect a kinesic division of the discourse into verbal units, each of which corresponds to an idea. Example 14: ideational units 1–8 1 qui est un système de de stockage de l’↜énergie • || which is a system of of storing energy 2 à l’aide de de vastes réservoirs > • || with the help of of vast reservoirs 3
qui vont permettre de stocker l’↜eau glacée et de façon à la restituer > • || which will enable chilled water to be stored and in a way that it can be released
4 pendant les les périodes d’↜élévation de température > • || during the the periods of high temperature 5 de façon à gérer au mieux toutes les pointes tous tous les surcoûts qui peuvent > • || in a way that we can best manage all the peaks all all the overloads which can 6 provenir euh de de l’utilisation inadaptée euh > • || arise er from from the ill-adapted utilisation er 7 de de de l’↜énergie électrique > • || of of of electrical energy 8 et cetera. Donc tout cela a été recherché derrière le décor > • || et cetera. So all that has been researched behind the decor Coding: || Hands join together. > Gaze shifts to the left. • Gaze returns to the interlocutor The code position (||, 〈, •) indicates the moment at which the gesture occurs in the speech chain. In Example 14, this twofold segmentation, manual and ocular, seems to correspond to the following succession of ideas: (1) Energy, (2) in reservoirs, (3) stored-released, (4) when, (5) problem, (6) of imbalance, (7) of energy, and (8) desired objective.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
2.1.2â•… Kinesic segmentation of ideational units into rhythmic-semantic groups Let us continue down to the next level of discourse organization in Example 14: ideational units 3–8. There we find instances of an ideational unit being divided up into smaller units by the transition from one gesture to the next, i.e. by changing one of its components, be it the body part (here, the hand), the configuration (here, the hand shape) or the movement. For example, changing the hand that is in motion splits units 3 and 8 (transition from two fists to one fist), and a change of hand shape splits unit 7 (transition from cupped hands to joined hands), whereas a movement change splits unit 4 (hands moving apart/joining together) and unit 6 (hands moving apart facing upwards/alternating up-down movement). Example 14: ideational units 3–8 3 qui vont permettre de stocker l’eau glacée et de façon à la restituer || [Both fists Right fist] which will enable chilled water to be stored and in a way that it can be released 4 pendant les les périodes [Hands moving apart during the the periods
d’élévation de température || joining together] of high temperature
6 provenir euh de de l’utilisation inadaptée euh || [Open hands facing upwards alternating up-down movement] arise er from from the ill-adapted utilisation er 7 de de de l’↜énergie électrique || [joined cupped joined] of of of electrical energy 8 et cetera Donc tout cela a été recherché derrière le décor || [cupped close Both fists Left fist] et cetera So all that has been researched behind the decor Coding: || Hands joined together. […] Description of the gesture the moment it appears in the utterance. The principle of change and the type of change act in a synchronous and complementary way as they simultaneously perform two functions.â•… Change creates a gap in the continuum and performs a demarcative function, whereas the type of change provides information and performs a referential function. Thus, the units that these changes delimit are truly rhythmic-semantic groups. For example, in unit 3, both hands are clenched in fist shapes as if they were trapping chilled water, “qui vont permettre de stocker l’eau glacée”, and then the right hand alone detaches itself by making an arched movement outwards as if it were symbolically representing a part of the trapped
Chapter 2.╇ The demarcative function of gesture 
energy to be redistributed, “et de façon à la restituer”. Similarly, in unit 6, the idea of the inadequate functioning of the mechanism to be perfected and adjusted is concretely expressed by alternately moving the upturned palms up and down, oscillating them in search of a better equilibrium. This kinesic subdivision is both demarcative (sub-rhythmic group) and referential (sub-ideational unit).
2.1.3â•… Kinesic segmentation of rhythmic-semantic groups into words Moving further down the hierarchy, lexical segmentation is not determined by a change of gesture but by the different temporal phases of the gesture (beginning, apex, end), or by means of sketching or repeating it. The co-occurrence of mini-changes at different levels of the body happens to correspond to a lexical segmentation; the phenomenon is particularly striking in the conclusion “Donc, tout cela a été recherché derrière le décor” (ideational unit 8). The hands close into tightly clenched fists “Donc” (So), and eye contact (•) is re-established for the beginning of the verbal conclusion “tout cela” (all that), before the fingers relax during “a été↜” (has been). It is then that left fist, facing upwards and tightly clenched, lifts up while the left shoulder goes down, accentuating the effort: “recherché↜” (researched). The fist moves up a notch further while the torso advances in order to better depict, or so it seems, the sketch of a jump, “derrière le” (behind the). The lowering of the left fist confirms the initiated movement representing ‘behind there’, while the raised eyebrows (^^) and a vocal stress emphasize the word “décor” (decor). We have just detailed the meticulous, kinesic, lexical segmentation of the final sentence. Its conclusive character was physically announced beforehand, during “et cetera”, by a posture change: a straightening up of the chest, shoulders back. Example 14: ideational unit 8 8 et cetera. Donc tout cela
a été
Chest straightened up > • Hands Fists cupped, close clenched, relax et cetera. So
all that
recherché
Left fist raised, facing raised backwards higher
has been researched
Coding: > Gaze shifts to the left • Gaze returns to the interlocutor ^^ Raised eyebrows
derrière le décor
Left shoulder Chest lowered forwards
^^ lowered
behind the decor
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Here we have yet another instance of rhythmic-semantic grouping. We find both fists expressing the quintessence of the whole, “tout cela” (all that). Then the left fist, on its own, is raised facing backwards during “recherché derrière” (researched behind). The latter gesture is a synthesis: while its fist shape evokes psychological force, the willed effort involved, “recherché” (researched), its backward movement towards the speaker evokes the other side of the decor, “derrière” (behind). Why this spontaneous use of the left fist and not the right fist? It does not seem unreasonable to suppose that for a right-hander the non-dominant hand is better at translating a secret activity ‘behind the scenes’ by indicating a place ‘behind himself ’. The non-conscious choice of (the left) hand is probably relevant, just like its shape (clenched fist) and its movement (backwards). Note that the maintaining of a gestural component (fist hand shape) corresponds to the maintaining of the idea it represents (force-energy). Thus, the fist hand shape that is present for the entire duration of ideational unit 8 expresses psychological force, willed effort. Also present for the entire duration of unit 3, the fist hand shape expresses physical force, concentrated energy. Here we find the principle that McNeill (2001) calls ‘catchment’: A catchment is recognized form recurrences of gesture form features over a stretch of discourse. /…/ A catchment is a kind of thread of consistent dynamic visuospatial imagery running through the discourse segment that provides a gesture-based window into discourse cohesion. The logic of the catchment is that discourse themes produce gestures with recurring features. /…/ An analysis of catchments reveals the hierarchical organization of discourse. (McNeill et al. 2001:â•›11) A basis for integrating gesture with discourse segmentation is the concept of the co-equal generation of gesture and speech from the same semantic intent or growth point. We use the device of the catchment as the locus around which this integration proceeds. Our detailed case study, combined with earlier studies of speech-gesture interaction at the growth point level (McNeill & Duncan 2000) describes a total communicative system from idea unit to discourse segment, in which components work together across levels to realize idea units in coherent contexts of speaking. (McNeill et al. 2001:â•›30)
In summary, Example 14 demonstrates how kinesic and verbal segments may relate to each other and organize discourse in a hierarchic structure. On the highest level, a posture change signals the forthcoming end of a paragraph. It coincides with a gestural pause that separates the ongoing sentence from the final sentence. The shifting back and forth of the eye gaze is coordinated with the recurrent return of the hands to the rest position, giving rhythm to the succession of ideas expressed (or to the moments of hesitation while searching for appropriate words). A change of
Chapter 2.╇ The demarcative function of gesture 
gesture segments each ideational unit into rhythmic-semantic subgroups. On the lowest level, the different temporal phases of a gesture (beginning, apex, end) correlate with lexical segmentation. Thus, from top to bottom, the hierarchic structuring of spoken discourse is underpined by kinesic units that are nested inside of each other. Various other studies of the gesture-speech relationship have similarly demonstrated a coordination, at various levels of organization, between the structure of spoken discourse and the flow of co-occurring movement. See, in particular, Condon (1976) and Kendon (1972, 2004a).
2.2â•… Recurrence in segmentation of discourse Here I report on extracts from Llorca’s (1996) analysis of the same utterance with regard to prosodic and kinesic recurrence. Listening to the acoustic sequence, one is struck by the fact that certain prosodic structures are repeated from one verbal unit to the next.
2.2.1â•… Prosodic recurrence7 This recurrent patterning one perceives is confirmed by an acoustic analysis (see Figure 12) in which the melodic configurations at the beginning of the utterance, “qui est un système de de stockage de l’énergie à l’aide de de vastes réservoirs”, are compared. The musical resemblance concerns the descending interval at the end of the first part of the two verbal units, as well as in the ascending/descending movement during their second parts. The measures display another similarity: the two units have more or less the same overall duration, about three seconds, although the second unit is textually shorter than the first (which suggests a process of temporal adjustment). In particular, there is the same time interval between the beginning of each unit and the main stress – on “sto” in the first and on “vastes” in the second. Furthermore, note that both units display a certain similarity with regard to their construction, by the way the text is distributed around the proposition “de…de”. In the speech chain that follows, “qui vont permettre de stocker l’eau glacée et de façon à la restituer”, the two final melodic patterns are similar and the two stressed syllables “l’eau” and “res” are pitched at the same level. The two overall durations are also similar (2 seconds for the first unit, 1.8 seconds for the second), if one includes the silence at the end of the second unit. These cases of similarity show that the speaker frequently uses a prosodic structure as an ‘acoustic mould’ for modelling the next unit.
.â•… Personal communication from Régine Llorca, Maître de Conférences à l’Université de Franche-Comté (Centre de Linguistique Appliquée de Besançon).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Verbal unit 1
Part 1
Part 2
qui est un système de …
de stockage de l’énergie
which is a system of … à l’ aide de …
Verbal unit 2
with the help of … Verbal unit 1
of storing energy de vastes réservoirs
of vast reservoirs
qui vont permettre de stocker l’eau glacée
which will enable chilled water to be stored Verbal unit 2
et de façon à la restituer
and in such a way that it can be released Figure 12.╇ Prosodic recurrence
2.2.2â•… Kinesic recurrence8 In Example 14, the process of recurrence one observes in the prosodic organization of the speech chains similarly applies to the gestural chains. For example, in the opening sequence: qui est un système de de stockage de l’énergie à l’↜aide de
de vastes réservoirs,
Here we have a repetition of the same rhythmic phrasing, which can be broken down into two parts:
.â•… Ibid. Personal communication from Régine Llorca.
–â•fi
–â•fi
Chapter 2.╇ The demarcative function of gesture 
The gesture produced during the sequence “à l’aide de” takes up the model of the gesture performed during “qui est un système de”, not only with respect to the shape of the movement (hands moving apart), but also its rhythmic structure. Thus, in both cases, the speaker marks a gestural stress when he stops opening his arms, although in the second case this is not justified, because the gestural stress falls on a silence and not on an acoustic stress. One may therefore think that the speaker has unconsciously reproduced the first ‘energy schema’ via an intervention of body memory; In the second part, one finds the same similarity of rhythmic structure in the movements performed during “stockage de l’énergie” and “de vastes réservoirs”, even if the physical forms and semantic contents of the gestures are different: the same departure/return structure is realized twice, in the first case by a lateral movement and in the second by a rounded movement downwards. One could say that the two gestures represent two variants of the same rhythmic structure, in which case they are two conditioned variants, one conditioned by the presentation of the explanation, “qui est un système de … de stockage de l↜’énergie”, and the other by the idea of a closed container that the speaker wants to represent, “à l↜’aide de … de vastes réservoirs”.
This example presents us with a principle of construction via recurrence based on the sensorial memorisation of energy structures occurring simultaneously on the motor and the vocal levels. One could liken this phenomenon of prosodic-kinesic recurrence to the principle of repeating, at least once, a structure that one has just produced while spontaneously singing or dancing. This is not a case of intentional recurrence on one level with a rebound on other levels, such as recurrent semantic content triggering a repetition of the acoustic melody and the gesture, or the repetition of a melodic and a gestural form into which the text flows. Rather, there is repetition on different, interconnected levels: verbal, vocal, and kinesic. To illustrate this phenomenon further, let us now look at two utterances that were produced by French intellectuals and which are comparable to two mini-ballets.
2.2.3â•… Discourse choreography Example 15 is particularly striking. We have two sentences (1 and 2), each of which is kinesically divided into three verbal units (a, b, and c), and the very last (c) unit is subdivided into two parts (see Figure 13). The hand moves upwards during each (a) unit, downwards to a certain point during each (b) unit, then two notches further down during each (c) unit. Here the synchrony between gesture and speech is perfect, as is
 Elements of meaning in gesture
the precision of the recurrent pattern of downward movement as the hand returns to exactly the same positions in space. 15 Et par conséquent, faites bien attention: l↜’humanité est divisée en deux. (video 17) And as a result, take special note: humanity is divided in two.
1.
a
1.a 1.b 1.c
Et par conséquent faîtes bien atten - tion
b
c
2.
a
2.a 2.b 2.c
l’ humanité est divisée, en - deux
b
c
Figure 13.╇ Discourse choreography
2.2.4â•… Semantic choreography Example 16 produced by a university faculty member with regard to academic assessment is also completely orchestrated, and even aesthetic, thanks to the repetition of similar gestures and their symmetric spatial distribution (see Figure 14: 1.a, b, c; 2.a, b, c).
16 [right hand, opened out on the sofa] Euh ça veut dire [(1.a) is moved Â�backwards] qu’au dessous [(.b) returns to the same place] de dix, [(.c) opens out again sideways] euh c’est inacceptable, [(2.a) moves forwards] qu’au Â�dessus [(.b) returns to the same place] de dix, [(.c) opens out again sideways] euh je vais l’accepter. (video 18)
[right hand, opened out on the sofa] Er that means [(1.a) is moved Â�backwards] that below [(.b) returns to the same place] ten [(.c) opens out again sideways] er it’s Â�unacceptable [(2.a) moves forwards] that above [(.b) returns to the same place] ten [(.c) opens out again sideways] er I’m going to accept it. The movement that organizes the parallel and symmetric segmentation of the sentence is, moreover, symbolic. The localization of lower and higher values conceived along the vertical axis, “au dessous” and “au dessus” (“below” and “above”), is transferred on the horizontal plane to the sagittal axis of progression oriented from back to front: the
Chapter 2.╇ The demarcative function of gesture 
reference point (•), the average “ten”, is located on the sofa between the two opposing directions. One also sees the palm opening up to present the announced result “c’↜est inacceptable” (it’s unacceptable), and then “je vais l’accepter” (I’m going to accept it). The choreography of the discourse becomes symbolic. The phono-gestural parallelism of the discourse – in the synchronisation of the acoustic and the kinesic flow, in the formal repetition of their constituent units, as well as in the symbolic representation of the semantic opposition conceptualized and translated into spatial terms – is highly conspicuous (Calbris 1989). ↑ •
--
b
c
•
--
b
c
↓ 1.
a
2.
a
1.a
qu’au dessous
2.a
qu’au dessus
1.b
de dix,
2.b
de dix,
1.c
c’est inacceptable;
2.c
je vais l'accepter.
Coding: ↓ “below”, ↑ “above”, • reference point “ten”, -- the result Figure 14.╇ Semantic choreography
Before analysing the referential function of gesture, which is the topic of Chapter 3, one has to know how to segment gestural units precisely in order to determine which subunits are relevant with regard to the referential function.
2.2.5â•… Segmentation of gestural units related to the referential function How does one segment gestural units into smaller, relevant, referential units? Typically, a gestural movement of any body part can be divided temporally into three distinctive phases: beginning – apex – end of the movement. In my methodology, a gestural unit is segmented relative to the apex of the movement of a body part (towards the apex – the apex – away from the apex). When several gestures are performed in sequence, the end of each movement merges into the preparation of the next without the body part being returned to a position of rest or relaxation. For the purposes of identifying and analysing the referential function of gesture, I only consider the first two phases of the gestural unit, ‘beginning of the movement – apex of the movement’, to be relevant.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Analyses of my corpora show that the apex generally coincides with a vocal stress on the key word: it is a rhythmically and semantically relevant moment. In my view, the problem of how to analyse a gestural unit in order to examine its referential function is primarily one of determining this relevant moment, the apex, which is called the ‘stroke’ by Kendon.9 Let us consider Example 17. The text in italics corresponds to the duration of the gesture described in the preceding square brackets. Thus, the speaker points his hands towards his chest whilst saying “nous tenons compte” (we are taking into account).
17 Donc, [hands pointing towards the chest] nous tenons compte [left fist retracted towards the speaker] des préoccupations qui nous ont été exprimées [left palm in oblique plane facing outwards] par les [retracted towards the speaker] unions d’associations familiales [left palm facing outwards] dont j’ai reçu [placed on the table] le président.
Therefore, [hands pointing towards the chest] we are taking into account [left fist retracted towards the speaker] the concerns which have been expressed to us [left palm in oblique plane facing outwards] by the [retracted towards the speaker] unions of family associations [left palm facing outwards] of which I have received [placed on the table] the president.10 The left palm faces outwards during the utterance of “par les”, thus designating the unions of family associations referred to in the utterance “unions d’associations familiales”, which is produced whilst the palm is being retracted towards the speaker in order to prepare for the second presentational gesture. Reopened outwards during the utterance of “dont j’ai reçu”, the hand designates the president referred to in the utterance “le président”, which is produced the moment the hand returns to the rest position: the palm placed on the table. As gesture always has the effect of announcing something, the abstract object is designated gesturally by the oblique palm before being designated verbally. The verbal utterance of the object designated by the gesture, “the unions of family associations” or “the president”, occurs after the apex of the gesture has been reached, the moment the gesture ends by returning to the speaker or to the table. Physically, it is a movement towards himself, but not a gesture towards
.â•… See Kendon 2004a, Chapter 7, for his definitions and discussion of the levels of organization of gestural action. There is no systematic correlation between his ‘gesture unit’ or ‘gesture phrase’ and my ‘gestural unit’. Because he chooses the return to the rest position as the objective criterion for segmentation, his ‘gesture unit’ is delimited by the rest positions between which movement(s) of the hand(s) occurs and can include a sequence of what I call ‘gestural units’. .â•… English word order: ‘Therefore, we are taking into account the concerns which have been expressed to us by the unions of family associations whose president I have received.’
Chapter 2.╇ The demarcative function of gesture 
himself; physically, it is a movement towards the table, but not a gesture of placement on the table. This meticulous transcription of the gestural modifications synchronized with the speech stream is replaced below by a transcription indicating only the semantically relevant movements:
17 Therefore, [hands pointing towards the chest] we are taking into account [left fist retracted towards the speaker] the concerns which have been expressed to us [left palm facing outwards] by the unions of family associations [left palm facing outwards] of which I have received the president.
The hand clearly designates the unions of family associations first, then the president. It is during its return to the rest position that what has just been designated gesturally is verbalized. Gestural designation precedes verbal denomination. In this chapter it was shown that, generally, changes in body movements in association with the voice constantly segment and structure the ongoing discourse. This kinesic demarcative function is always in operation while one is speaking. The patterning of body motion in relation to verbal units allows one to see a hierarchic organization of gestural and verbal units. If one looks at how these gestural and verbal units correlate with ideational units, one finds that referential gestures often express ideas that are subsequently verbalized. How one identifies whether a given co-speech gesture is performing a referential function will be dealt with in Chapter 3.
chapter 3
Identifying the referential function of gesture In this chapter the referential function of gesture will be studied in order to lay the foundations for analysing later, in Chapter 9, how referential gestures can perform a predictive function. Here it will be discussed how features of visible bodily movement serve to express notions and concepts, and emphasis will be placed on manual gestures. As we saw in the description of the Example 14 in Chapter 2, units of movement may not only be found to correspond to levels of discourse segmentation with regard to the sequence of ideas expressed, but they may also display features that express these ideas in kinesic form in a variety of ways. As explained in Chapter 1, a kinesic unit identified as a ‘gesture’ may be analysed as if it were comprised of a number of components. In the case of a manual gesture it can be described as a combination of a hand configuration, an orientation of the palm, and a movement phrase, for example. Each of these components may serve to express an idea. For instance, in Example 14 the gesture with the left fist raised and facing backwards performed during “recherché derrière” (researched behind) (ideational unit 8), the fist configuration evokes the idea of psychological force, the willed effort involved in what was “recherché” (researched), while its backward movement towards the speaker evokes the side of the decor that cannot be seen, “derrière” (behind). Each component represents something figuratively. Each component therefore constitutes the basis of a gestural sign. Hence, the quoted gesture is in fact bireferential since it contains two gestural signs. In the present chapter various ways in which components of gestures can become gestural signs and perform a referential function will be explored. It is useful to begin by recalling an obvious fact: a gesture that performs a referential function is a visual sign. Hence aspects of the laws of visual representation that should be taken into account when analysing gesture are discussed first (Some precepts in visual representation). Furthermore, as an element of multimodal communication, a representational gesture is an eminently contextual sign. I therefore argue that it is necessary to take into account not only precepts of visual representation but also the verbal, vocal and kinesic contexts in which a gesture occurs in order to analyse its referential function (The importance of context for identifying the meaning of a gesture). The chapter continues with the analysis of a short dialogue (Example 24) to demonstrate the importance of context when seeking to identify a gesture’s referential function (Example of analysis). To conclude, another example (Example 25) is analysed to show that representational gestures are not communicationally redundant; their semantic contribution to utterances
 Elements of meaning in gesture
frequently complements or anticipates speech rather than duplicating information that is conveyed verbally (The representational gesture is not a word illustrator).
1.â•… Some precepts in visual representation In analysing gestural signs, one needs to apply knowledge of the principles that govern visual-kinetic representation. Moreover, we are not just spectators of gestures produced by others but also actors, actor-spectators of gestures that we produce in our own space. We shall see how these considerations enter into the analysis of gestures that Lionel Jospin, a former French Prime Minister, produced during a televised discourse (Examples 21 and 22). Perception is a highly selective and interpretive activity and, furthermore, there is reciprocal feedback between perception and interpretation. Initially, the observer only perceives known elements and only sees interpretable elements, i.e. those which are subjectively relevant. Thus, perception is pre-interpretative. Interpretation itself depends on the number and the richness of the perceived elements (orientation, movement of different body parts, some of which, like the palm or the fingers, can adopt different configurations). Analysis depends upon a perceptual processing that one must perfect, which requires training. One must realize that visual and proprioceptive perceptions are interconnected. We make gestures, and we see ourselves making them in space. It matters little whether it is a question of daily activities or linguistic signs derived from these activities – visual and proprioceptive perceptions are simultaneous and interact from our very early childhood onwards (Anderson S.W., Koulomzin M., Beebe B. & Jaffe J., 2002). One can sense in another person’s movement what one has already done or could do oneself. This faculty of ‘empathy’, which is physically explained by the interaction between the two modes of perception, allows us to physically understand another person’s gestures that one can subsequently reproduce oneself. This natural interaction between the two modes of perception has been confirmed by the discovery of ‘mirror neurons’ in macaque monkeys as well as in humans (Hari et al. 1998; Rizzolatti et al. 2001). This mirror neuron system can be exploited by Â�analysts of gesture. The only way to know whether one has perceived a gesture correctly or not is to reproduce it: the discrepancy between the reproduced and the perceived gesture Â�immediately becomes apparent. Reproducing, or ‘appropriating’ the gesture, at least Â�mentally, is a useful exercise for sharpening one’s perception. The perceptual Â�appropriation of the gesture also facilitates comprehension. Tuning into one’s proprioception corrects the natural tendency to perceive only what one already knows. It is useful to reproduce a newly encountered gesture to avoid assimilating it with a known gesture. One has to know the principles of visual representation in order to understand a gesture or a sign in a sign language correctly (Bouvet 1989, 1996, 1997; Cuxac 2000;
Chapter 3.╇ Identifying the referential function of gesture 
Stokoe 1960; Volterra 1987; Yau 1992). Generally, in sign language, one sets up spatial locations for the elements that are going to interact and then shows the interaction by movement between these locations. The direction of movement indicates the subject and the object of the action. Syntax becomes semantic: the obligatory sequence ‘subjectobject-verb’ in visual-gestural language differs from the sequence ‘subject-verb-object’ that one normally encounters in spoken French. The main rule is to set the stage before introducing the characters, i.e. to represent the spatial relation in which the elements will be situated before relating them to one another. It enjoins that the frame of reference, be it a time line or a scale of values, is in place before introducing the element to be referred to (see below, The relation precedes the elements to be related). Another rule is ‘gaze anticipates movement’ (Berthoz 1997:â•›200). Gaze attracts attention to what is to be looked at; it indicates where the forthcoming gesture will be take place. An obvious rule to respect on the visual level is that one can only designate an object whose existence has been established, and one can only qualify an object that has been identified (see below, Designation precedes qualification). Interpreting co-speech gestures only with regard to their simultaneity with speech, without taking into account the rules of visual representation, can result in interpretation errors.
1.1â•… The relation precedes the elements to be related 1.1.1â•… Relation of transfer or of substitution The gestural representation of a relation of transfer is produced on the transverse axis for physical reasons (ease of movement) and in two phases for semantic reasons. The phenomenon is typical. Firstly, a movement indicates the type of relation (the scene). Secondly, the same movement is repeated to situate the elements (the characters). The movement respects the orientation of the transverse axis; it goes from left to right:
18 Je crois que quand [arced transverse movement to the right] on opère le transfert des cotisations sociales [return to start position on the left] de l’assurance maladie [repeated arced transverse movement to the right] sur la CSG1
I think that when [arced transverse movement to the right] one implements the transfer of national insurance contributions [return to start position on the left] of health insurance [repeated arced transverse movement to the right] to the CSG
.â•… The Contribution Sociale Généralisée is a tax, a proportion of which goes towards funding health care in France. It is not a social security contribution as payments do not entitle one to receive social security benefits.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Notice that once the initial path has represented the idea of transfer, “on opère le transfert des cotisations sociales”, the second path accounts for the places involved in the transfer and its direction: extraction from the left, “de l’assurance maladie”, for insertion on the right, “sur la CSG”.
1.1.2â•… Temporal relation Similarly, when a temporal relation is to be established, events can only be situated relative to a pre-established frame of reference. In the following example, the speaker locates congresses on the time axis. Spatio-temporal logic is such that one locates the past in relation to the present and then, in relation to that past, the subsequent passage of time that ends in the present.
19 C’↜est d’élire une nouvelle équipe qui va accompagner la nouvelle équipe gouvernementale. [vertical palms facing each other, fingers pointing forwards, in the Frame configuration (see Appendix A, 9.)] Lorsque nous avons fait, prévu la date de ce congrès, [right hand moves over the left hand and is placed on the left] c’est-à-dire trois ans [starts to move back towards the right] après le précédent, [to take up its initial position, palms facing each other again] à sa date normale, nous voulions nous préparer aux élections.
It’s to elect a new team that’s going to accompany the new governmental team. [vertical palms facing each other, fingers pointing forwards, in the Frame configuration] When we set, scheduled the date of this congress, [right hand moves over the left hand and is placed on the left] that is to say three years [starts to move back towards the right] after the previous one, [to take up its initial position, palms facing each other again] on its normal date, we were wanting to prepare ourselves for the elections. The reference point in time is positioned on the horizontal plane immediately below the left hand, which is held facing the right hand in the Frame configuration. The right hand detaches itself in order to go back in time and therefore moves to the left, over the left hand – the immobile reference – towards the previous congress, and then returns to the same place on the right, passing through the three years separating that congress from the one that is scheduled. The message is understood before the end of the utterance: as soon as the time interval represented on the left has been stated, “c’est-à-dire trois ans”, at the moment when the hand synchronously stops on the left after having gone back in time, thus indicating the date of the previous congress. previous congress <––––––- 3 years –––––––-
scheduled congress
Chapter 3.╇ Identifying the referential function of gesture 
1.1.3â•… Relation between numbered values Here again one finds the logic inherent in the visual representation of a relation because the gesturer begins by situating the reference point:
20 [Right Level Hand (see Appendix A, 5.) is lowered] Ils les maintiennent à l’intérieur, [displaced to the left] et même [and returns to the right] en dessous des 3%.
[Right Level Hand is lowered] They keep them within, [displaced to the left] and even [and returns to the right] below 3% In this example, the hand movement seems to contradict what is being said, because it starts to move back again towards the right as one begins to hear “en dessous de 3%.” There is no contradiction; it is just that the reference point of 3% is stated at the end of the verbal phrase, whereas the gestural representation of the relation requires the reference point to be shown first: Thus the reference point on the scale of values is situated underneath the lowered right hand. The right hand then goes to the left to situate the lower rate, whose inferiority can only be understood if it returns to the right,2 to the reference point of 3% that is finally verbalized. <–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-| -–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–>| below 3%
1.2â•… Designation precedes qualification One has to make an object exist by designating or presenting it before one can qualify it. It is for this reason that Lionel Jospin who is reporting on progress regarding five of his commitments, presents the fourth issue before defining it both gesturally and vocally at the same time:
21 C’↜était le [the left hand, palm facing upwards, moves towards the interlocutor indicating] quatrième engagement que j’avais pris, [then the left hand returns to the centre – the axis of symmetry of the gesturer’s body – as it transforms into the Wide Gap configuration (see Appendix A, 13.) nous devons faciliter le retour au travail.
It was the [the left hand, palm facing upwards, moves towards the interlocutor indicating] fourth commitment that I had taken on, [then the left hand returns to the centre – the axis of symmetry of the gesturer’s body – as it transforms into the Wide Gap configuration] we have to facilitate the return to work. .â•… For reasons of physical ease, the lower and higher values conceived and located on the vertical axis are transferred to the horizontal plane where they are expressed either on the sagittal axis from back to front, or on the other axis of progression, the transverse axis from left to right (Calbris 2002:â•›55).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
The Wide Gap configuration (formed by holding the thumb and the index finger apart in parallel) is a delimitation-definition of the fourth commitment (presented beforehand by the palm) that aims (signified by the movement back to the centre) to facilitate a ‘re-entry’ into the job market. In the following example, the Prime Minister uses a marine metaphor: the course to steer (see Figure 15). It is the reason why his gesture represents the stem (of the governmental boat) that cleaves through the waves towards the highly important objective. He represents this target before qualifying it, before signifying its importance and the obligation to attain it with the fist shape. In contrast, he begins his sentence by stating the idea of obligation: “Ca doit être l’axe essentiel, ça doit être le cap”3 (That must be the essential axis, that must be the course):
22 [stiff flat left palm lifted high up, edge of the hand facing forwards] Ca doit être [moves forwards] l’axe essentiel, [lowered fist] ça doit être le cap.
[stiff flat left palm lifted high up, edge of the hand facing forwards] That must be [moves forwards] the essential axis, [lowered fist] that must be the course. The gesture gives the audience the advantage of being able to grasp the whole message right from the beginning of the sentence. You hear “ça doit être” (that must be), and see the vertical side of the hand lifted (as in Appendix A, 7.), ready to move forwards; you make a synthesis out of them: ‘ça doit être … l’↜objectif↜渀屮↜’ (that must be … the objective). This kind of interplay between the two types of expression allows one to do a re-take, so to speak, of the same sentence “Ca doit être l’axe essentiel, ça doit être le cap” without wearying the audience; it allows one to concretely insist upon the action to be undertaken whilst maintaining a crescendo in the information.
Speech stream: Ca doit être l’axe essentiel Gestural signs: Towards the targeted object
ça doit être le cap Wanted!
Figure 15.╇ Visual representation rule: designate before qualifying (Calbris 2003d:╛38)
.â•… “Le cap” is the direction on a compass that a boat is moving towards.
Chapter 3.╇ Identifying the referential function of gesture 
2.â•… The importance of context for identifying the meaning of a gesture We have already seen how the Ring configuration changes its meaning according to the verbal context or the kinesic context in which it occurs (see Chapter 1, A contextual sign). We shall now look more closely at the importance of the context. To pin down the meaning of a co-speech gesture, one has to take into account the information conveyed by the situation in which it occurs, by what is said, by the voice, and by other moving body parts.
2.1â•… The vocal context When analysing a co-speech gesture, both the acoustic information provided by the vocalized text and the rhythmic and melodic information conveyed by the voice enter into the analysis. It is important to register vocal phenomena in order to determine what it is in the body movements that segments the phrase, highlights certain words, expresses emotions in liaison with the voice, or may possibly represent abstract notions. It is necessary to distinguish body movement with a referential function from body movement with a demarcative or expressive function in liaison with the voice. The distinction is relatively easy to make once the vocal scansion and accentuation have been coded. For example, lowering the head has a different function depending on whether or not it coincides with a vocal stress. In the first case it would serve accentuation, and in the second it would probably be a sign of confirmation (see Chapter 5, Examples 34–35).
2.2â•… The simultaneous and the successive kinesic contexts A manual gesture should be interpreted in relation to ‘co-occurring’ movements, i.e. those simultaneously produced by other body parts. The meaning of a hand raised in symbolic exclamation becomes positive or negative depending on the facial expression. Leaning the head to one side can either be a way of designating something, or of expressing tenderness or desire to receive it, or of looking at a question from a different angle. Gaze shifts or mouth movements will determine the particular meaning of the head movement, for example, indication of place, benevolent attitude, or a sign of restriction; the meaning is verified by what is said in the given situation. Not only do the face and head movements that co-occur with a gesture count, but also the comparison with the preceding gesture insofar as the change delivers new information (see Chapter 1, Gestural sequencing). Both the co-occurrence of the movements and their sequencing are important when interpreting a gesture. Analysing a gesture without taking into account either its kinesic context or the gesture sequence within which it occurs is a source of errors (see Chapter 2, Example 17).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Placing the hands flat on the table is not necessarily a meaningful gesture or even a gesture at all. It may be just a simple return to the speaker’s favoured rest position, for example, the hands placed flat in a configuration which I call ‘Level Hands’ (see Appendix A, 5.) on the edge of the table in front of him, with the torso bent slightly backwards during a pause at the end of a verbal phrase. A repeated return to a rest position can create a slight rhythmic pause that serves as a transition between two gestures, as in the following example described in full:
23 Ca alors, [left hand Right Angle (Appendix A, 4.) moves forwards and pushes away] c’était à contre-courant [Level Hands] de l’évolution [both Oblique Palms (Appendix A, 8.), separated, presenting] des moeurs, [Level Hands] des attitudes [Frame configuration] et de l’envie [Level Hands] d’indépendance et [both Oblique Palms, separated, presenting again] de réalisation [Level Hands] par le travail des femmes.
That then, [left hand Right Angle moves forwards and pushes away] that was at odds [Level Hands] with the evolution [both Oblique Palms, separated, presenting]of morals, [Level Hands] the attitudes [Frame configuration] and the desire [Level Hands] for independence and [both Oblique Palms, separated, presenting again] for realization [Level Hands] through women’s work. The description of just the relevant physical elements in the gesture stream gives this: That then, [left hand Right Angle moves forwards and pushes away] that was at odds with the evolution [both Oblique Palms, separated, presenting] of morals, the attitudes [Frame configuration] and the desire for independence and [both Oblique Palms, separated, presenting again] for realization through women’s work. The Level Hands are not signs but serve to articulate the transition between successive gestures whose forms carry meaning. The Oblique Palms show what the stated object is, “the evolution of…” or “the desire for…”, and correspond to the qualification it is given, “(the evolution) of morals” or “(the desire) for realization through women’s work”. Note that it is as if the particular abstract object “the desire for…” is captured and delimited by the palms facing each other, before simultaneously being presented by the Oblique Palms and explicated by the words “for realization through women’s work”. This particular interpretation that may seem ad hoc is, in fact, based on the study of a large number of examples of such gestures observed in large corpora of recordings of French speakers (see Chapter 5, Systematic analysis). It has been indicated above that a gesture can have more than one meaning. What seems to happen is that the context comes to ‘activate’ one of its potential meanings. However, despite the indisputable role of the context, it is important to acknowledge the inherent meaning of a co-speech gesture. This is deduced by comparing the
Chapter 3.╇ Identifying the referential function of gesture 
information provided by the physical components of the gesture and that provided by the verbal context. Above all, one should not look for the meaning of the gesture in the words spoken but in the gesture compared with what is said. The gestural information interacts with the verbal information that it underpins, announces, complements or nuances, as the analysis of the following sample shows.4
3.â•… Example of analysis Here we have a mini-dialogue between two friends, X any Y, who are waiting in a cafe for a third person who is late to arrive:
24 X: Il a dû se tromper d’endroit
X: He must be waiting in the wrong place Y: Je lui ai dit trois fois: rendez-vous à six heures et demie au bistrot en face du Rex Y: I told him three times: we‘ll meet at six thirty in the bistro opposite the Rex X: Tu sais avec lui, ça entre par une oreille, ça ressort par l‘autre. Tiens une fois à Genève, il retrouvait plus sa voiture, il croyait qu‘on (la) lui avait volée. Alors, il va au commissariat, l‘agent prend sa déposition, lui demande le numéro d‘immatriculation. Sa voiture, les flics l‘avaient mise à la fourrière. Il s‘était garé sur les rails du tramway. X: You know with him, it goes in one ear and comes out the other. Hey, one time in Geneva, he couldn’t find his car; he thought that someone had stolen (it). So, he goes to the police station, the officer records his statement, asks him for the registration number. His car, the cops had impounded it. It’d been parked on the tram lines. Y: Parfois je me demande s’il n’est pas un peu … Y: Sometimes I ask myself if he isn’t a bit … Here, the vocal channel and the kinesic channel conjointly perform a demarcative function: they synchronize in a vocal-kinesic dynamic that structures the utterance, dividing it into semantic units and subunits. This is demonstrated below by analysing just one part of X’s utterance (video 19). The speech stream is shown in italics, and
.â•… One of numerous short dialogues full of tacit messages taken from La Mauvais Langue (Calbris & Montredon, realisation R. Didi 1992) and that were at the origin of the article “Multicanalité de la communication et multifonctionnalité du geste” (Calbris 1997).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
the co-speech body movements are described underneath the transcript (RH = right hand, LH = left hand): Example 24 (video 19) 1.1 Tiens, une fois à Genève il retrouvait plus sa voiture, Hey, one time in Geneva, he couldn’t find his car
1.2 il croyait qu’on lui avait volée he thought that someone had stolen (it)
Torso leans forwards RH touches Y LH thumb & index configuration relaxes beat on Genève
leans back retracts to table
2.1 Alors il va au commissariat,
2.2 l’agent prend sa déposition,
2.3 lui demande le numéro d‘immatriculation
So, he goes to the police station,
the officer records his statement,
asks him for the registration number
RH rests on table LH X looks at LH presents it to Y
writes on LH acts as paper
draws vertical, clockwise loops
Contextuals meanings of gestures: 2.1 ‘for evidence’ 2.2 ‘a written trace’
2.3 ‘and so on’
As shown in Chapter 2, bodily segmentation of discourse is organized hierarchically. For example, sentence 1, “Tiens une fois à Genève, il retrouvait plus sa voiture, il croyait qu’on lui avait volée”, is cut into two major parts by movements of the torso: X leans forwards and his right hand touches Y’s arm during “Tiens une fois à Genève, il retrouvait plus sa voiture” (1.1), then he leans back, retracts his right hand and places it on the table during “il croyait qu’on lui avait volée” (1.2). However, the verbal unit 1.1 is semantically and kinesically divided into three smaller units: while the right hand maintains contact with Y during “Tiens” (1), the left hand parses the utterance by marking a beat on “Genève”, then by drawing the thumb and the index finger together to specify “une fois à Genève” (2), and finally by relaxing the hand configuration during “il retrouvait plus sa voiture” (3). By analysing co-occurring movements one can segment the visual continuum (Condon 1976) and reveal the phenomenon of hierarchic segmentation: the greater the amplitude of the movement, the larger the section of discourse it brackets (cf. Kendon 1972). In unit 1.1, X’s hand touching Y’s arm to maintain his attention performs a phatic function: “Tiens (une fois à Genève)”. Moreover, the word “Tiens” transparently indicates that the contact is maintained: the literal translation of ‘main-tien’ in French is
Chapter 3.╇ Identifying the referential function of gesture 
‘hand-hold’. Furthermore, a story teller can express his own attitude or mime someone else’s. By expressing the emotion felt by the hero of the story he maintains the listener’s attention, and his emotive mimicry thus performs a phatic function. This is the case when X leans backwards to imitate the hero’s reaction of surprise when he cannot find his car: “il croyait qu’on lui avait volée”. Referring back to the preceding paragraph, we can see that each gesture is multifunctional. Each one performs two functions, one of which, the demarcative function, persists during the whole utterance. The act of touching the interlocutor creates a segment that encases “Tiens” and has a phatic function. The assumed contact between the thumb and index finger of the left hand creates a segment that encases “une fois à Genève” and performs a referential function by analogically evoking the notion of precision. The backward movement of the torso segments “il croyait qu’on lui avait volée”, and the speaker indirectly reinforces the phatic function by imitating the hero’s surprise to liven up his story. The sentence that follows, “Alors il va au commissariat, l’agent prend sa déposition, lui demande le numéro d’immatriculation…” (So he goes to the police station, the officer registers his statement, asks him for the registration number…), is composed of three semantic groups (verbal units 2.1, 2.2, 2.3) segmented by three gestures that perform a demarcative function as well as a referential function. The latter is deduced by taking into account other contextual data, which are not only verbal, but also kinesic and vocal. Let us firstly consider the other kinesic elements that determine how one interprets the gesture. In unit 2.1, the open left hand outstretched during “Alors il va au commissariat” could be understood as an example of the ‘palm up open hand’ presenting a consequence (Kendon 2004a: 265 ff. and Müller 2004), if one does not notice the speaker’s gaze conjointly falling on this hand, which ipso facto becomes a representation of the piece of paper documenting the theft of his car. This contextual meaning is subsequently confirmed both gesturally and verbally in unit 2.2, when the speaker says “l’agent prend sa déposition” while using his right hand to represent writing on his left hand and thus signify the written record of his oral statement. Contrary to appearances, this gesture does not signify the concrete act of writing – in reality, a typewriter or computer keyboard would have been used to record the theft at the police station – but the very idea of writing, of materializing words on a sheet of paper which can be read and thus be presented as legal evidence. The vocal channel also plays a role in selecting which meaning a gesture takes on (Figure 16). For example, the drawing of vertical, clockwise loops is polysemous: in analyses of the corpora, this gesture is found to evoke the notions of habit, series, and linkage, among others. Its contextual meaning in unit 2.3 is deduced from the simultaneous verbal and vocal information conveyed: “lui demande le numéro d’immatriculation …” is uttered with the typical rising intonation of an incomplete sentence. This allows one to choose ‘series’ as the meaning of the gesture in unit 2.3, which in this verbal context signifies ‘and so on’. Hence the listener compares his notion
 Elements of meaning in gesture
of ‘series’ with his own personal experience of French bureaucracy when reporting a theft, on the one hand, and with what he heard, “le numéro d’immatriculation”, on the other, and understands that the gesture refers to all the wretched paperwork that ensued in this story. The multichannel message could approximately be transcribed thus: “lui demande le numéro d’immatriculation … et cetera”. In short, disambiguated by the vocal channel, the kinesic channel complements the information provided by the verbal channel. Channels:
Corresponding information:
verbal
“lui demande le numéro d’ immatriculation”
vocal
(rising intonation: incomplete sentence) …
kinesic
– habit – series – linkage
> series
> and so on
Figure 16.╇ Interpretation of the gesture according to the contextual data
In order to verify the preceding analysis, it suffices to modify the intonation of the verbal unit. Associated with a categorical intonation, “le numéro d’immatriculation (full stop).”, the drawing of vertical, clockwise loops no longer has any raison d’↜être and confuses the listener-spectator who had previously integrated the whole message without really being conscious of doing so. In summary, the above analysis show.s that the segmentation of utterances into units of meaning systematically correlates with the melodic movement of the voice in synchrony with body movement. This segmentation is hierarchized: the co-occurrence of movement changes in different body parts determines the division into units and subunits of meaning (sentence 1). In general, the transition from one referential gesture to another divides the utterance into rhythmic-semantic groups (sentence 2), and a gesture becomes ‘multifunctional’ insofar as it performs two functions, for example, demarcative and referential (see also Chapter 2, The multifunctionality of each communication channel). One realizes that gestural information is not a duplicate of simultaneously uttered verbal information but that the interlocutor, playing on the multiple means of expression available to him, complements the one with the other: “So he goes to the police station” … ‘to make a statement’ is expressed by the outstretched hand that is gazed upon and thus represents a piece of paper that can be read, here, the record of the stolen car reported to the police. “He asks him for the registration number” … ‘and so on’ adds the gesture. In doing so, the gestural information provided during a verbal unit may anticipate the information in the verbal unit that follows: ‘So he goes to the police station (to make a statement), the officer records his statement’, as if the gestural sketch had to be explicated by means of speech (see Chapter 9, A pre-verbal sign).
Chapter 3.╇ Identifying the referential function of gesture 
In sum, gesture is able to complement or anticipate speech because it can convey information on its own. It has one particular meaning that is contextual and precisely determined, as shown in the analysis of units 2.1 and 2.3, by the kinesic or vocal context (see Chapter 1, Characteristics of the gestural sign).
4.â•… The representational gesture is not a word illustrator Since an idea may be expressed both kinesically and verbally, one may wrongly deduce that the gesture conveys redundant information, that it is simply an illustrator of what is said. In fact, the co-speech gesture formulates the idea to be expressed verbally. Here is an example provided by Lionel Jospin (LJ) facing a journalist (PPDA). LJ is talking about the planned development of the social security systems for the long-term unemployed. He says the word ‘system’ several times and accompanies it with different gestures (Figure 17):
25 LJ: On passe [small globe sculpted by both hands] d’un système où on [repeated] reçoit des allocations de chômage, relativement correctes si l’on peut dire – ça dépend aussi des revenus – à un système …
LJ: One goes [small globe sculpted by both hands] from a system in which one [repeated] receives unemployment benefit, relatively correct one could say – that also depends on income – to a system … PPDA: à un système zéro. PPDA: to a zero system.
LJ: Pas zéro. A ce moment là, c’est l’État, c’est le Gouvernement qui reprend en quelque sorte dans un filet ceux qui sont là, mais avec euh une allocation spécifique de solidarité qui est beaucoup plus faible. Et ce moment de la rupture, il va falloir l’examiner. Donc [right hand in the shape of a Pyramid,pointing upwards] j’ai demandé à Madame – Join-Lambert, Marie-Thérèse Join-Lambert – de travailler sur l’examen de ce qui ne fonctionne pas dans notre système de solidarité, [palms facing each other sketch a movement from the left] et notamment [to the right] des rapports [back to the left] entre le système d’assurance-chômage [then to the right] et le système de solidarité assuré par l’État. LJ: Not zero. At that point, it’s the state, it’s the government that in a way catches in a net those who are there, but with er a specific social security benefit that is much smaller. And this moment of rupture, one is going to have to examine it. Therefore [right hand in the shape of a Pyramid, pointing upwards] I asked Madame – Join-Lambert, Marie-Thérèse Join-Lambert – to work on examining what does not function in our social security system, [palms facing each other sketch a movement from the left] and notably [to the right] the relations [back to the left] between the unemployment benefit system [then to the right] and the social security system assured by the state.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
On passe d’un système One goes from a system Globality
entre le système d’assurance-chômage between the unemployment benefit system A defined object (on the left)
et le système de solidarité assuré par l’ État and the social security system assured by the state Another defined object (on the right) Figure 17.╇ The representational gesture is not a word illustrator (Calbris 2003d: 41–42)
To begin with, LJ manually formulates the globality of the ‘system’, i.e. the very notion of system. But for him it is about a particular system. That is why, even before
Chapter 3.╇ Identifying the referential function of gesture 
quoting Madame X, he is formulating the idea of this ‘specific object’ with his hand closed in the Pyramid configuration (see Appendix A, 2.) as if it contained something, and only later is this idea put into words: “to work on examining what does not function in our social security system”. His utterance is in fact about analysing the relations5 between one system and another, i.e. between one defined object and another: the mental object is immediately defined, delimited between the vertical palms in the Frame configuration. Hence this configuration appears right at the beginning of the utterance about the relation to be established between object X on the left, “the unemployment benefit system”, and object Y on the right, “the social security system assured by the state”. One can see how LJ’s gestures evolve along with the evolution of his idea punctuated by the constant repetition of the word ‘system’. It lets one see his mental processing of envisaging, as if he were progressively zooming in, firstly, on the notion of system itself, then on the notion of its adaptation to a particular context, and finally on the definition of a particular system. These notions are represented respectively by three gestures: the globality of the system is represented by a globe drawn by both hands; its specificity is represented by closing the hand into the Pyramid configuration; and, finally, one system in particular is defined by holding the palms in the Frame configuration to delimit it. This phenomenon of gestural-ideational evolution is particular neither to an individual nor to a cultural group. Adam Kendon gives a Neapolitan example of it (2004:â•›153–156, Figure 8.13). By making different gestures, the speaker who repeats “è commerciante” (he’s a business man) several times gradually modifies the sense of it. It is in this way that the person who is initially presented as excessively commercial, and is in fact very tight-fisted when doing business, will come to be recognized as a true businessman. In summary, this chapter has indicated some precautions to be taken when identifying gestural signs contained within the kinesic flow, insisting on the fact that gestural signs obey the laws of visual representation and that a gestural sign can only be interpreted in its context. Nevertheless, gesture conveys information on its own and can complement or anticipate speech. Having discussed how to identify gestural signs in one single utterance, my subsequent reasoning is based on a large sample of data, and numerous referential co-speech gestures will be compared in order to understand how they function symbolically. Part II will therefore focus on the systematic organization of gestural signs.
.╅ As indicated above, the representation of the relation of comparison (left / right) precedes that of the elements to be related (on the left / on the right).
part ii
The systematic organization of gestural signs
chapter 4
Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components In order to arrive at an understanding of the symbolic system of gestures that replace or accompany speech, it is necessary to have access to a diversified and representative sample of the whole system. Accordingly, in this book I draw upon data that have been collected over a period of many years and that constitute the three corpora cited in the Introduction. In this chapter my approach to gaining an understanding of this system will be fully described. It begins by developing a classification of gestures according to �physical �criteria. This allows for an objective and relatively exhaustive approach. �Insofar as a physical feature of a gesture can be shown to be the vehicle of a �meaning, this �classification becomes physico-semantic as recurrent correlations emerge from the data. It is underpinned by two main tenets: (1) Relevant physical features of �gestures that are vehicles of meaning depend on gestural components, e.g. �configuration, �orientation, movement and localization of a body part; (2) The referential function of gesture is based on the establishment of gestural signs: each sign links a relevant �physical feature of a gesture to its contextual meaning. The relevant physical feature in a given context may simply be one of the gestural components. For example, in Chapter 1 we saw how different gestures expressing increasing exclamation all had upward movement in common, and hence, upward movement was the relevant physical feature that analogically represented increase (Figure 1). One also finds instances in which one gestural component presents several different relevant physical features. This is the case of the Ring configuration that was also analysed; its contextual meanings were connected by an analogical link, either to its circular form, or to the point of contact between the nails of the index finger and the thumb, as if they were pinching something very fine (Figure 5). On the other hand, one finds instances in which the relevant physical feature is the product of two gestural components, for example, a movement and a configuration. Such is the case when a forward movement of the configuration Palm Forwards represents repulsion (Figure 8). In this chapter we shall see that the relevant physical feature of a gesture can also be the product of a gestural component and a subcomponent, for example,
 Elements of meaning in gesture
the movement (component) of the side of the flat hand (subcomponent of a hand configuration) in a gesture representing cutting. There is not always a one-to-one relation between a relevant physical feature and a gestural component. One must not confuse the physical elements that constitute a gestural sign with the physical components of the gesture, the physico-symbolic level with the physical level. Establishing a gestural sign consists in selecting a component or subcomponent or incombining them depending on what is required to produce the figurative representation in question. We shall see that the different gestural components do not have the same degree of relevance depending on the type of gesture. Furthermore, when the meaning of a given gesture changes across contexts, one finds that its gestural components are apt to change their relevance in order to establish a gestural sign that fits each particular context of use. A metaphor may help to understand this phenomenon: just like roles are distributed among the actors in a theatre group according to the play they are producing, the distribution of the roles that gestural components play in figurative representation changes according to a gesture’s context of use. One component may take on the leading role, obliging the others to take on secondary roles that are nonetheless necessary to produce the figurative representation. The casting within the team changes to suit the representation to be realized: the hierarchic importance of the component-actors of the representation changes according to each individual case! As in the theatre, a change of representation results in a change of distribution in the roles that gestural components play. This chapter begins with a discussion about what is involved in determining the relative priorities of these components on a given occasion of gesture use (The context indicates the relevant body part). As we shall see, on any given occasion, one gestural component will have priority over the others in determining the gesture’s contextual meaning. Discovering the primary relevance of a particular physical element, by repeatedly encountering it in various cases, allows one to classify gestures progressively. This process gave rise to the classification presented (Table 6), which offers guidelines to identify the relative relevance of a given gesture’s components. In establishing this classification it appeared necessary to begin with a broad distinction between those gestures that touch or focus on a part of the speaker’s body (body-focused gestures) from those that do not (gestures in space). An example of a body-focused gesture would be drawing a line with a flat hand above one’s head to signify ‘en avoir jusque là, par dessus la tête’ (to have something up to here, (lit.) above the head), equivalent in English to being ‘fed up to the back teeth’ with something. Another would be when someone rotates his index finger while touching his temple to signify ‘il est fou’ (he’s crazy). In cases such as these we shall see that the localization, i.e. the body part that the gesture touches or focuses upon, not the position of the body part making the gesture, is of primary relevance (Localization: body-focused gestures).
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 
A comment has to be made in passing here. In French culture, in everyday conversation, apart from the speaker touching his interlocutor to maintain his attention, for example, on the forearm as in Example 24, gestures very rarely touch or focus on parts of the interlocutor’s body. For this reason such gestures will not be dealt with here at all. By definition, body-focused gestures refer exclusively to parts of the speaker’s body. For gestures that do not touch or focus on a body part of the speaker, the movement is of primary relevance (Movement: gestures in space). In these cases it is necessary to distinguish gestures which describe straight lines or flat surfaces from those which describe curved lines or surfaces, because the physical elements which are relevant for the former are not relevant for the latter. Finally, the systematic research of different gestural signs highlights a very large and important category of head gestures, namely movements performed with the head, excluding facial expressions. We shall see that the head complements or substitutes for the hand in order to carry out a particular movement that conveys meaning (Head gestures).
1.â•… The context indicates the relevant body part Whether it is a matter of ‘throwing up one’s hands’, or greeting someone with a raised fist as a sign of solidarity during a struggle, or raising one’s arms in response to ‘Hands up!’, or raising one’s hand or finger to vote, the arm is always raised along with the finger, hand, or fist. These gestures are placed in the category ‘arm’ because they bring into play the arm as a global functional unit. If the hand is the sole focus of attention, or if only the hand is operating, the gesture is placed in the category ‘hand’. Arm ← All Part → Hand ← All. Part → Digit(s) Let us consider some ambiguous cases by way of example. Figure 18.1 shows a palm held vertically with the fingers spread out tensely. When moved slightly outwards it may signify ‘No’ or ‘Five’, depending on the context. In the first case, the palm moves forwards to form an obstacle; it is a gesture of the whole hand. In the second, attention is drawn solely to the outspread fingers representing five units; it is a finger gesture. Here is another example. Figure 18.2 shows a hand configuration with the fingertips touching and pointing upwards* which may accompany phrases such as *C’↜est le condensé du phénomène (that’s the heart of the matter) or *J’ai l’impression que … (I have the impression that …). In the first case, it is the condensing movement of closing the whole hand that is relevant; it is a hand gesture. In the second, it is the fact
 Elements of meaning in gesture
that the fingertips move against each other in order to experience a tactile feeling that would lead one to classify it as a finger gesture. Thus, the relevant body part is indicated by the corresponding verbal utterance.
Fingers ‘Five’ ‘No’ Hand
Fingers ‘Feeling’ ‘Condensation’ Hand
Figure 18.╇ The relevant body part is indicated by the corresponding verbal utterance (Calbris 1990:╛45)
In each major class of referential gestures shown in italics in Table 6, one �particular component has priority and determines which, if any, of the other components are also of semantic relevance. The most relevant subcomponents governing classification, particularly in the case of gestures in space, are listed to provide scaffolding. Table 6.╇ Classification of referential gestures by priority physical component Priority component
Classes of gestures
Localization
Body-focused gestures
Movement Form of movement: Direction of movement: Secondary components:
Gestures in space Straight pathways Directional axis of movement Body part (hand or digit/s) Configuration of body part Orientation of configuration …
Body part
Head Gestures
Curved pathways Clockwise vs. anticlockwise
2.â•… Localization: Body-focused gestures Body-focused gestures are those which touch, focus on, draw or sculpt forms in front of a particular part of the speaker’s body. They constitute a distinct class insofar as the localization of the gesture takes precedence over the moving body part, the configuration, and the movement. For example, when alluding to madness, importance is only
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 
given to the temple, the place where the movement of the index finger or all the fingers takes place in a straight line or a curved line. Furthermore, these gesture variants (see Figure 19) correlate with French metaphoric verbal expressions: the index finger taps the temple (Il est marteau, timbré, fêlé, (lit.) he is a hammer, stamped, cracked) or simulates boring into it like a screwdriver (Il est siphonné; Il lui manque une vis, (lit.) he is siphoned; he is missing a screw); alternatively, the hand is concave and outlines a circular movement with the fingers pointing towards the temple (Complètement barjo; Ca ne tourne pas rond, completely nuts; (lit.) that does not turn round).
Figure 19.╇ Body-focused gestures: Allusions to madness (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›51)
The body parts localized by body-focused gestures are numerous and located between the head and the hips, as if we were speakers without legs (Table 7). Indeed, a positional transfer from the lower to the upper body when referring to walking (transfer from feet to hands) has already been mentioned in Chapter 1 (Representation of the physical world). Table 7.╇ Codes of body parts localized by body-focused gestures (Calbris 1990:╛46) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Face (a non-specific part of) Head Hair Forehead Temple Eyebrow(s) Eyelids Eye(s) Under the eye Nose Under the nose Ear(s) Cheek(s)
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Mouth Lips Teeth Tongue Chin Neck Shoulder(s) Armpit(s) Biceps Elbow Forearm Wrist(s) Hand: palm
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Hand: digits Throat Chest Heart Thorax Stomach Waist Hip(s) Abdomen Kidney(s) Thighs
 Elements of meaning in gesture
What do body-focused gestures specify? They localize a source of pain (a migraine), describe a particular shape, permanent or temporary, of the body part (a swelling or lump), or they describe elements worn on the body (a tie). This category of gestures may not just simply describe the physical attributes to which they refer, they may also refer to psychosomatic disorders, linking the physical to the psychological, and hence allow the transition towards gestures with a symbolic character. For example, a palm touching the head may not solely refer to a migraine, but to the cause of a migraine, the difficulty of a problem that turns out to be a real headache. Another example would be the simulation of adjusting a tie, which can refer to the absence of a tie, its required readjustment, or to the moral character attributed to the tie wearer! (see Figure 20). By enacting the physical upward stretching of the neck while adjusting a tie, this gesture relates back to the rigid person (who has swallowed his walking stick) stretching his neck up, to the haughty person (who eyes you up and down from the heights of his grandeur). Rigid and haughty, ‘stiff-necked’, that is how a tie wearer looks, an executive or a bourgeois, tightly wrapped up in his collar just as he is in his social role. The connection established between the gesture and its contextual meaning is not direct; it can extend across multiple links in a semantic chain. The physico-semantic classification thus allows one to recognize the shift from the iconic gesture to the metaphoric gesture.
Figure 20.╇ Body-focused gestures: The stiff-necked man (Zaü in Calbris & Montedon 1986:â•›55)
Besides the group of descriptive gestures, another series relates to body functioning, to its good or bad functioning. For example, each intellectual activity taking place
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 
in the brain is specified by a particular body part, configuration, and/or movement. Intelligence, know-how, a recalled memory, an instant of discovery are signified by moving the hand or the index finger in a straight line that originates on the forehead, whereas waves of circular movements in front of the forehead correspond more fittingly to reverie or the imagination. One experiences the resistance of a hard head, narrow-minded and stubborn, by hitting it with the palm or the fist. A brain with a failing memory is punished in the same way. And if one forgets or is indifferent to what an interlocutor has said, it is well known that ça lui entre par une oreille, ça ressort par l’autre (it goes in one ear and out the other). The idea of words ‘going through the brain’ without leaving a mental trace is signified by the right index finger appearing to penetrate the right temple horizontally, followed by the left index finger appearing to emerge from the left temple. These are some of the gesture variants of the allusion to madness that are executed in a straight or a curved line. Other mental pathologies may be represented by outlining circles in the frontal plane in front of the forehead: circles performed with one hand can represent the ‘ruminating’ characterized by thinking about the same thing over and over again (of turning the same object over and over again in one’s mind), and both hands moving in entangled circles can represent confusion (mental muddle).
3.â•… Movement: Gestures in space 3.1â•… Form of movement In cases where gestures do not touch or focus on a body part, the movement is the priority component. The shape of the movement pathway (straight versus curved) can modify the relevance of the other gestural components: those which prove to be relevant for gestures that describe straight lines or flat surfaces are not relevant for those that describe curved lines or surfaces (see Table 6).
3.1.1â•… Straight-line gestures and their secondary components The relevant components in the case of straight-line gestures are the movement as well as the body part (hand or digit/s), its configuration and orientation. Other secondary physical features include repeated movement and bimanual symmetry. 3.1.1.1â•… Directional axes of movement in relation to the planar position and orientation of the body part.â•… One distinguishes between (1) moving parts of the hand into a configuration to produce a ‘static’ gesture, and (2) moving a hand configuration to produce a ‘dynamic’ gesture. In both cases one takes into account how a manual
 Elements of meaning in gesture
gesture is positioned in a plane (sagittal, frontal, or horizontal) and oriented along a directional axis (sagittal, vertical, or transverse). Planes and axes provide spatial markers, and we shall see how they are interrelated and play a role in determining the relevant features of a manual gesture and therefore its meaning. Figure 21 shows how each axis can be viewed as a pivotal line that hinges two intersecting planes: the sagittal axis from back to front hinges the sagittal and the horizontal planes; the vertical axis from up to down hinges the frontal and the sagittal planes; the transverse axis from left to right hinges the horizontal and the frontal planes. Thus each axis is common to two planes and is opposed to the third plane to which it is perpendicular. For example, a movement along the sagittal axis from back to front is common to (1) the sagittal plane and the (2) the horizontal plane, whereas it is opposed to (3) the frontal plane to which it is perpendicular. Note that a plane can be enlarged by extending the perpendicular axes that define it, e.g. the sagittal plane can be elongated along the sagittal axis or stretched upwards along the vertical axis. Moreover, a plane can be displaced by moving it along the axis to which it is perpendicular, e.g. the sagittal plane can be shifted sideways along the transverse axis.
Left Back
Down
Figure 21.╇ Any directional axis is a pivotal line that hinges two planes
Let us now consider how the meaning of a gesture performed with a flat hand may be specified by the plane in which it is positioned and by the directional axes along which it may move. The flat hand presents different physical elements (palm, fingertips, edge) that seem preconceived to represent different spatial markers (plane, directional axis, pivotal line). In fact, the flat palm forms a plane; in profile, the fingertips form the shape of an arrow analogous to a directional axis; the edge of the hand is analogous to a pivotal line between two planes. Each of these
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 
parts of the hand is analogous to one of the spatial markers. Thus the flat hand can perform two movements that are perpendicular to each other in a plane and extend it. For example, Figure 22.1 shows that the flat hand can extend the sagittal plane by moving (1) along the arrowed axis of the fingers (sagittal axis) or (2) along the axis perpendicular to the edge of the hand (vertical axis). It can also move (3) along the axis perpendicular to the surface of the palm (transverse axis) that displaces the sagittal plane from side to side. Similarly, Figure 22.2 shows that the flat hand held in the horizontal plane can move along the transverse and sagittal axes that extend the plane sideways and forwards respectively or along the vertical axis that displaces it up and down.
1. Sagittal plane
2. Horizontal plane
Figure 22.╇ Possible orientations of parts of the flat hand in relation to the plane
In the method of analysis proposed in this book, the orientation of the hand is determined by the part of the hand that leads a movement or may exert force along a directional axis. Analyses of the corpora show that the orientation of the fingertips, the edge of the hand, or the palm prove to be semantically relevant. In whatever plane the hand is positioned, it has several options for initiating movement or exerting force: the fingertips can guide it along the directional axis of the fingers; the edge can cut through a perpendicular plane; the palm can oppose a perpendicular axis. Thus a part of the hand that leads a movement or can exert force in a particular direction is considered active. The directional axes and the orientations of parts of the flat hand are highly interrelated and semantically distinctive. Therefore, if the plane in which the hand is positioned may be moved in different directions according to the orientation of each one of the active parts of the hand, then, consequently, the meanings of gestures that move in the same direction change according to the plane of the hand and the orientation of the active part. For instance, in Figure 22, a downward movement led by (1) the edge of the hand in the sagittal plane as opposed to (2) the palm in the horizontal plane is semantically distinctive due to the change of active body part.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Let us consider the consequences of the analogies between each potentially active part of the flat hand and its respective spatial marker: palm > plane, fingers > axis, edge > pivotal line. Each of the three planes represented by the palm can be extended or displaced. It is enlarged by a movement of the hand led by its longest continuous edge, i.e. the edge of the palm aligned with the fifth digit, which, for example, can move sideways to enlarge either the horizontal plane or the frontal plane, or move downwards to elongate either the sagittal plane or the frontal plane. Any plane, whether it be horizontal or frontal or sagittal, can be displaced either by a movement perpendicular to the plane constituted by the palm, or by a movement following the direction of the fingertips. Moreover, a rotational movement of the wrist orients the palm up/down in the horizontal plane, outwards/inwards or forwards/backwards in the frontal plane and right/left in the sagittal plane. The orientation of the palm is relevant because we know from experience that we have more power to resist a contrary force with the palm than with the back of the hand. The fingertips form the shape of an arrow that indicates a direction extending along the line of the fingers. This arrowed line can thus designate or localize something. Displacing it along a directional axis traces the axis, and in doing so it advances against the plane to which the axis is perpendicular. The fingertips can therefore ‘bore a hole, pierce, cross, and plunge into something’. As a line at the intersection of two planes, the edge of the hand can trace a demarcation line on the plane to which it is perpendicular. It is sufficient to repeatedly move the edge of the hand back and forth across the demarcation line to saw through the plane, whereas a brusque movement perpendicular to the plane will cut it in two. Let us now consider the consequences of changing the orientation of the fingertips or the palm of the flat hand, first in the sagittal then in the frontal plane. In the sagittal plane, with the fingertips pointing forwards (Appendix A, 11.) one can move the fingertips forwards, the edge of the hand downwards, and the palm sideways (Figure 22.1). In the same plane but with the fingers pointing upwards (Appendix A, 7.), one can choose between moving the fingertips upwards, edge of the hand forwards, or the palm sideways. In the frontal plane, with the palm facing outwards and fingertips pointing upwards (Appendix A, 6.), one can produce the following dynamic gestures: (1) an upward movement following the arrow of the fingers, (2) a forward movement of the palm against a perpendicular force coming towards oneself, or (3) a sideways movement of the edge of the hand enlarging the surface thus represented in front of oneself. Let us just change the orientation of the palm to arrive at a new position: a simple ° 180 rotation of the wrist results in a static gesture (4) that transforms the palm from a
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 
surface that is presented to an interlocutor to one that faces oneself, a surface that one can look at like a mirror or read like a letter. Let us now just change the orientation of the fingers by rotating the lower arm 90° anticlockwise. The lateral orientation of the fingers changes the semantic potential of the active parts of the hand and results in other static gestures. Whereas the fingertips are transformed into a static gesture (5) that designates and localizes something on the left, the edge of the hand now constitutes (6) a demarcation line (a limit) on the horizontal plane and, in doing so, transforms the palm facing oneself into (7), a vertical surface (an obstacle) opposed to movement forwards. Adding movement to these static gestures results in dynamic gestures: (8) a forward movement of the palm displaces the limit constituted by the edge of the hand or the obstacle constituted by the palm. Moreover, the frontal obstacle can be stretched (9) upwards by moving the edge of the hand (curtain of separation) up the vertical axis, or it can be made wider (10) by moving the fingers (barrier) sideways along the transverse axis. Let us continue to change just the orientation of the fingers by rotating the lower arm a further 90° anticlockwise, so that the fingertips are now pointing downwards while the palm continues to face oneself. In this position the palm no longer constitutes an obstacle, neither does the edge of the hand constitute a demarcation line. Only the fingertips remain relevant: they constitute a static gesture (11) a manual arrow whose orientation designates or localizes something below; a downward movement constitutes a dynamic gesture (12) as the manual arrow intersects the (perpendicular) horizontal plane and can represent the action of plunging into something. The ‘dynamic’ gestures of the flat hand thus consist essentially in producing either a movement along the directional axis of the arrow line of the fingers, or a movement of the edge of the hand extending the plane along an axis perpendicular to the fingers, or lastly, a movement perpendicular to the palm. The reader can verify these principles ruling the reciprocal and dynamic orientations of the different parts of the hand as we progress through the book and encounter further examples. For the moment, let us retain the fact that for static gestures the important data are the body part employed and its orientation in a particular plane (see the static gestures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 described above). These are the two relevant physical elements of static gestures; we shall see that it is sufficient to change either the body part or the plane to modify the meaning of a static gesture.
3.1.1.2â•… The body part and the plane in which it is positioned.â•… Figure 23 shows how a gesture’s meaning changes according to the plane in which a body part is positioned. For example, the hand raised in the sagittal plane, palm facing sideways,
 Elements of meaning in gesture
will express an exclamation; held in the same position, the index finger will announce a declaration or a precise statement; the thumb will signify excellence; the thumb and index finger held perpendicular to one another will represent a revolver or a rifle. On the other hand, raised in the frontal plane, palm facing outwards, the hand will express an objection; the index finger, a correction; the thumb, a request to stop: ‘Pouce!’ (lit. thumb!); the thumb and the index finger, the quantity two. All these interpretations are specific to France, of course. The meanings of these gestures change according to the body part and the plane in which it is positioned. The body part and its plane are therefore relevant.
Body part:
Raised in: Sagittal plane
Frontal plane & palm outwards
Hand Exclamation
Objection
Declaration
Correction
Excellence
Request to “Stop!”
Rifle (shot)
Quantity “two”
Index finger
Thumb
Thumb-Index finger
Figure 23.╇ Straight-line gestures: the relevance of the body part and the plane
3.1.1.3â•… Repeated movement.â•… When lowered, the edge of the hand cuts; when lowered several times in the same place, it chops; when lowered and displaced a small amount sideways with each chop, it sections off portions. One is also led to
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 
make distinctions between different ways in which movements may be repeated, for example: (1) a repetition of the same movement, (2) an oscillating movement, and (3) shaking. 3.1.1.4â•… Symmetry.â•… The use of both hands, preferred for marking emphasis, becomes necessary to when one wants to express, for example, a comparison or a conflict. 3.1.2â•… Curved gestures and their secondary components The above four factors that are relevant for straight-line gestures are not relevant for gestures which outline curved lines or surfaces. Figure 24 summarizes these differences in diagrammatic form and they are considered individually below: 1. What about the direction of movement? In order to draw a circle, the hand constantly changes directional axis. When drawing a clockwise circle in the sagittal plane, it moves upwards and forwards away from the body, then downwards and backwards towards oneself. It moves to the right then returns to the left if the circle is drawn in the frontal or the horizontal plane. There is no directional axis; it changes constantly. In contrast, only the direction of the circular movement is relevant: one distinguishes between the progressive (clockwise) and regressive (anticlockwise) directions regardless of the plane in which the circle is drawn, whether it be sagittal, frontal or horizontal (Figure 24.1). 2. What about the body part? It does not matter whether a horizontal circle is drawn with one finger, two fingers, all the fingertips of one hand, or the edges of both hands moving symmetrically. A change of body part is not distinctive as it does not effect a change of meaning. Therefore the body part employed to draw a circle is not relevant (Figure 24.2). 3. What about the repetition of the movement? Since the circle has the property of being a closed curve, there is no value to be gained, as it were, by repeating it; outlining a part of it suffices. Passing the half-way point amounts to producing a complete circle. Similarly, starting a second circle is equivalent to drawing two or more of them. The repetition of a circle is not really semantically distinctive, even if it does introduce some nuances; it is not very relevant (Figure 24.3). 4. What about the use of both hands? A cyclic phenomenon is signified by repeated circles made with one hand or with two hands turning around each another. Although not semantically distinctive, the use of both hands allows nuances to be expressed; it is not very relevant (Figure 24.4).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Straight-line gestures
Curved gestures when drawing circles
1. Direction of movement clockwise vs. anticlockwise
on distinctive axes
relevant
relevant 2. Body part 1 finger
>1 finger
edges of both hands not relevant
relevant 3. Repetition
=
=
> halfway = 1 circle
2nd circle begun = circles not very relevant
relevant 4. Symmetry
= circles with 1 hand
relevant
= 2 hands circling each other not very relevant
Figure 24.╇ Relevance of the components depending on the movement form: straight vs. curved gestures
3.1.2.1â•… Clockwise versus anticlockwise movement.â•… Table 8 shows the extent to which the form of the movement, tracing either a straight line or a curve, modifies the relevance of the other gestural components. When drawing circles, all that matters is whether the direction of the circular movement is clockwise or anticlockwise.
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 
Table 8.╇ The relevant components of straight-line and curved gestures The relevant components of straight-line gestures:
The relevant components of curved gestures when drawing circles:
1. Directional axis of movement conveyor of the meaning specified via the hand’s plane or orientation 2. Body part 3. Repetition of the movement 4. (Symmetric) use of both hands
Clockwise vs. anticlockwise movement
3.2â•… Direction of movement The direction of the movement of straight-line gestures is given according to the axes Up–Down, Front–Back, and Right–Left. Since the direction has implications for the meaning conveyed by a movement, a distinction is made between movements directed forwards and those directed outwards, on the one hand, and those implying a step backwards and those implying an introversion, on the other. These distinctions thus introduce a new axis: Outwards–Inwards, which physically merges with the Front–Back axis (see Figure 25). Of course, centrifugal and centripetal movements in relation to the body are not restricted to the sagittal axis. Straight-line movement
Curved movement
axes and directions
clockwise or anticlockwise
Figure 25.╇ Relevance for straight line versus curved movement
In contrast, in the case of curved movement, only the distinction between clockwise and anticlockwise direction is important.
4.â•… Body part: Gestures in space By body part, I mean the part of the body that performs the gesture. The head, a hand, a finger, an eyebrow, the trunk are considered as various body parts that are capable
 Elements of meaning in gesture
of movement. But the finger is part of the hand which is part of the arm, just as the eyebrow is part of the head. It was shown how to determine the relevant body part at the beginning of this chapter (The context indicates the relevant body part).
4.1â•… Form of the body part: Examples of hand configurations The above analysis of the two major classes of movement opposing straight-line and curved gestures reveals that the body part is one of the components relevant to straight-line gestures (Table 8). The relevance of the body part lies, in fact, in its functional form. “Configuration” is the term given to the form that a body part takes on to perform an action or to represent a particular action or object.1 Here are examples of hand configurations that are relevant: –â•fi
–â•fi –â•fi
Bowl. The hand forms a concave shape as if to contain something and to represent various stages in the operational chain enabling one to catch, take, hold, weigh, or keep something in one’s hand. Fist. The fingers are rolled up into the palm, whether it be to hold a virtual object or to transform itself into a natural weapon. Pyramid. All the fingertips touch to form a closed, pointed hand shape. Depending on the orientation of the point and the action that this may possibly infer, attention is directed to particular elements: –â•fi
–â•fi
–â•fi
to the fingers, which may converge on a precise point either to pinch something, or to pick up a small object, which is not possible if the Pyramid is pointing upwards. to the internal volume or to its reduction obtained by closing the fingers. The Pyramid, pointing upwards in this case, becomes a manual purse that is able to contain an object captured in the palm.
Flat hand. The numerous meanings attached to the flat hand demonstrate just how varied a configuration’s physico-semantic components may be. With the fingers held together and stretched out, it can constitute: –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi
a flat rigid surface, a board or a plateau; a naturally pointed board, with the fingers indicating a direction; a plane equipped with a edge for cutting, dividing; a double-sided entity of which the palm side, in particular, is sensitive and used for touching and contacting; a double-sided entity of which the palm side is also able to resist an opposing force. Depending on the origin of the force, the palm side offering resistance
.╅ Please refer to Appendix A for illustrations of the hand configurations.
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 
either performs or represents different actions (see Figure 26). Positioned in the frontal plane and facing outwards, it opposes a force coming from the outside in order to protect oneself. Inversely, facing inwards, it opposes a force that is pushing forwards. In the sagittal plane, it blocks a force coming from the left side. Held horizontally and facing upwards, resisting the force of gravity, the palm lifts up or supports something. Inversely, facing downwards, struggling against a force coming up from the ground, the palm keeps something down on the ground. Frontal palm facing outwards
Sagittal palm
facing inwards
Horizontal palm facing upwards
Counter resistance Block progression Block progression
Support
facing downwards
Keep down
Figure 26.╇ The palm resists an opposing force
–â•fi
Right Angle. With the hand folded in a Right Angle configuration, i.e. the four fingers held together with their internal surface facing towards oneself, the fingers constitute a double-sided surface in the frontal plane that can offer resistance on either side. Either the backs of the fingers oppose a force coming from the outside that they push away, or the internal face of the fingers opposes a force that is pushing outwards and that it tries to hold back.
Here is a semantic subdivision of gestures performed by lowering the flat hand in the sagittal plane with the fingers pointing forwards* (Appendix A, 11.):
26 Connection Up–Down. The gesture* expresses a connection between the sky and the earth: “Il faut être un peu médium: *ça nous arrive comme ça” (You’ve got to be a bit of a medium: *things like that happen to us), or between generations: “Je les étudie à travers toute la planète et *leur filiation” (lit. I study them all over the planet and *their descendants).
27 Fall, Striking a blow. The edge of the hand represents the blow that sick horses are subjected to: “Il fallait *les abattre” (les chevaux) (It was necessary to *slaughter them (the horses), or unfortunate listeners overwhelmed by constant news updates: “De toute façon, *elle vous est assenée à une cadence assez rude” (Anyway, *it hits you at quite a vicious pace).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
28 Cutting, Division. Here the range of meanings is diverse. The gesture represents a dividing panel: “*Dans les cloisons, il tapait” (lit. *On the dividing walls, he was knocking). Or cutting something into two: “Je voudrais qu’on ne pose pas la dichotomie *comme admise entre…” (I wish that one would not take the dichotomy *as accepted between …). It also represents something that has the characteristic of being able to cut, for example, someone with a cutting personality: “Il est *quand même très sévère, *très strict” (He is *nevertheless very severe, *very strict).
29 Obstacle, Limit: “Il est nécessaire de savoir *sur quels butoirs, *sur quels obstacles, la majorité…” (One needs to know *against what stumbling blocks (lit. buffers), *against what obstacles, the majority…)
In these examples the flat hand has different relevant subcomponents. It is the fingertips that draw a line from a high to a low position to represent a connection between up and down (Example 26). It is the edge of the hand that cuts down on to something to represent a striking blow (Example 27). It is the surface of the hand that, constituting a panel, represents a dividing panel (Example 28). It is the palm that, opposing a progression, represents an obstacle or a limit (Example 29). However, differences in meaning are connected to modifications in how the gesture is performed, which may be more or less subtle, according to the different shades of meaning intended: a large movement is used to signify a departure from a high position (Example 26), a fast movement to signify a fall (Example 27), a brusque halt to signify a cut, a brusque halt right in front of oneself, along the axis of symmetry of the body, to signify cutting something in two (Example 28). If performed to one side, the same movement signifies an obstacle (Example 29). How can one confirm that this movement really signifies the opposition applied to a force progressing along the transverse axis from left to right? In fact, there is another gesture variant that expresses the idea of limit by displacing the same hand configuration from left to right. In other words, in order to signify a limit, lowering this configuration in the vertical plane is interchangeable with displacing it from left to right. This leads to the following methodological indication: the interplay of possible permutations between two gesture variants that represent the same notion indicates their underlying motivation. It is thus a differentiated quality of movement (amplitude, speed, brusqueness) that designates the relevant subcomponent of the configuration (point, surface, edge of the flat hand). The movement of a subcomponent of the configuration becomes the gesture’s relevant physical feature that establishes the gestural sign (see Chapter 7, Figure 51, The analogical links contained in a polysemous gesture).
4.2â•… Direction of the body part: Orientation Orientation corresponds to the directional axes: Up–Down; Front–Back; Outwards– Inwards; Right–Left. Figure 22 showed that each distinctive part of the hand can
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 
initiate a movement of the whole hand and lead it in a specific direction. The relevance of the orientation of a distinctive part of the hand depends on the hand configuration. For example, the orientation of the fingers is relevant when the hand is flat, or curved like a bowl, or closed like a pyramid. The relevance of the orientation of the palm varies depending on the case; the orientation of the edge is relevant when the hand is flat. The direction of movement and the orientation of a body part may differ, and sometimes they are even opposed: a Pyramid oriented upwards can perform a downward movement.
5.â•… Head gestures Spherical and capable of small-scale movements because it joins on to the neck, the head is a very particular body part. Understanding head gestures requires a prior understanding of hand gestures. One cannot really observe and understand head gestures well until one has noted their redundancy with regard to corresponding hand gestures and clarified what the latter mean. Indeed, a forward movement of the chin can mean ‘There; Straight ahead; Push; or Throw it away’, whereas these very same meanings would be specified by different hand configurations as the hand moves forwards: flat palm facing upwards for ‘There’; in profile for ‘Straight ahead’; in the frontal plane, palm facing outwards for ‘Push’, initially folded, then with the backs of the fingers brushing outwards for ‘Throw it away’. It is necessary to know the analogical link manifested by the hand movement in order to be able to recognize it in the head movement. For example, does lifting the head allude to a movement backwards, upwards or outwards? One could say that the raised head* refers to a backward movement if it accompanies a meaning generally associated with a movement of the hand lifted up high with the palm oriented backwards, ‘*I haven’t seen him for ages’. It refers to an upward movement if it accompanies a meaning often expressed by one or both hands pointing upwards and raised in profile at head level. In this case, it is generally accompanied by eye gaze directed upwards to signify ‘*Ah, if only I could!’ Movement frequently occurs synergistically at different levels of the body. Nevertheless, a corollary head movement can replace a hand movement.
5.1â•… Rotational movement of the head in three planes The head can make several types of movement in the same direction. For example, it can execute an upward movement either in a straight line by extending the neck (and possibly standing on tiptoe to increase one’s height too), or in a curved line by a Â�rotation in the sagittal plane. But how does one determine what the gesturer intends to signify by moving his head?
 Elements of meaning in gesture
In order to focus exclusively on head movements, let us disregard the face and consider the head as a simple sphere that is able to execute a rotational movement in all three planes (see Figure 27): these are termed inclination in the sagittal plane, tilt in the frontal plane and turn in the horizontal plane.
sagittal Inclination
frontal Tilt
horizontal Turn
Figure 27.╇ Rotational movement of the head in three planes
5.1.1â•… Movement in the sagittal plane The direction of movement that a speaker indicates by rotating his head in the sagittal plane is determined by the degree of rotation. If one extends the trajectory of a head rotation outwards from the point where it ends, this gives the directional axis. Figure 28.1 shows that a difference in the degree of rotation expresses an opposition that corresponds to a change of axis when the head moves away from the chest: forwards (first degree), outwards (second degree), upwards (third degree), and backwards (last degree). The first degree of rotation can signify ‘There, in front’; the second degree can designate ‘Up there, above’; the third can refer to somewhere even higher up, to heaven, ‘O Lord!’; and the fourth can imply somewhere far away situated behind oneself in an allusion to the distant past, signifying ‘That’s as old as the hills’. 1. Away from the chest
2. Towards the chest
4 3
1
2
2
1
Figure 28.╇ Rotation of the head (in profile) in the sagittal plane: each degree of rotation (1–4) corresponds to a different axis. (Calbris 1990:â•›47) ╛╛╛╛╛╛╛╛╛╛╛╛╛╛╛╛╛ssssss â•›sssssss ╛╅↜
Inversely, in the case of a rotation towards the chest in the sagittal plane (Figure 28.2) the first degree of lowering the head can designate the ground to
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 
signify ‘Here!’, and the last degree, with the chin tucked in towards the neck, can designate oneself ‘Me!’. But why does the speaker choose to designate with the head and not with the hand? Maybe his hands are occupied? Maybe he wants to be discrete? Another possibility might be that he wants to designate several things at once, synthetically? Indeed, a firm nod of the head downwards allows one to insist upon what the movement designates. The same gesture both designates and insists; it would be the equivalent to ‘Here (I said)!’ or to ‘Me (damn it)!’ respectively. It combines two functions, the referential function of designation and the expressive function of insistence. As such gestures perform several functions simultaneously they are termed multifunctional. A head rotation in the sagittal plane can therefore replace hand movements in the sagittal plane in all directions (downwards or upwards, forwards or backwards, outwards or inwards). Let us continue by looking more closely at how one interprets a head movement according to its physical context. In the sagittal plane, it may have the same degree of elevation for various reasons, each of which is made explicit by the direction of the gesturer’s gaze. Here are some examples with the head lifted up: –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi
Gazing downwards in order to ‘look down’ on someone or to ‘eye someone up and down’. This is an expression of contempt. Gazing into the distance in order to see something better, to dominate better, not a person but a situation. This is an expression of delayed understanding, ‘Ah, I see!’. Gazing upwards in order to designate something situated high up or to mimic any movement directed upwards. Gazing skywards in order to pray or to call someone to witness something generally negative, ‘If only I had known!’.
5.1.2â•… Movement in the horizontal plane. In the horizontal plane, a turn of the head indicates the direction right or left by displacing the most prominent facial features, the nose and the chin, on condition that the gaze moves in the same direction as the head, or at least stays on the interlocutor. As soon as the eyes close, the meaning changes: the head is no longer turned towards X, but turned away from Y.2 One can only interpret the movement of a body part in relation to the concurrent movement of other body parts. Hence the interpretation of the head movement can only be ascertained in relation to the gaze; it depends on the kinesic context. Methodological guideline: a gesture is interpreted in relation to the other simultaneously performed gestures.
.╅ This observation is confirmed by Enfield (2001: 207).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
The head designates right and left not only by turning in the horizontal plane but also by tilting in the frontal plane. However, when using the head to situate two points A and B on opposite sides of the body, the meaning of the gesture depends on the plane in which the movement takes place. In the frontal plane, the head would point to two objects situated on either side of the body’s axis of symmetry and express a choice between A and B; in the horizontal plane, it would express a spatio-temporal displacement that stretches from A to B, the horizontal plane being the only plane on which we walk to displace ourselves. We shall see that this change in meaning is rooted in plentiful and differentiated perceptual experiences – visual, proprioceptive, or motor – associated with each plane. For the moment, let us note that a gestural component (movement) is interpreted in relation to another component (the plane in which the movement is carried out): the meaning connected with the movement is specified by the plane. Here is another methodological guideline to be retained: the meaning of the gesture is the product of the meanings of these two components: the primary, the common component (movement) and the secondary, the particular component (plane). Likewise, the meaning of a repeated head rotation changes according to the plane in which the rotation is performed: nodding in the sagittal plane, shaking the head in the horizontal plane, and tilting the head from side to side in the frontal plane.
5.1.3â•… Movement in the frontal plane Let us return to movement in the frontal plane, to tilting the head. The different contexts in which it occurs reveal it to be polysemous. It can: 1. simply localize, designate right and left ; 2. quite often represent a particular point of view; 3. represent the slanted, imbalanced position of an object in relation to the vertical axis; 4. represent a posture of tenderness. Each of these gestural signs is motivated, and each implied analogical link is dependent upon the head being put into a physical relation with another body part: the gaze (2), the vertebral column (3), and the shoulder (4), respectively. In fact, tilting the head changes the angle of sight and gives a different point of view towards the object under consideration. The representation of an oblique line reproduces the slant of the axis of the head in relation to the vertical axis of the torso. The posture of tenderness reproduces the movement of the head leaning towards the shoulder in order to rest on or snuggle up against it.
5.2â•… A selection of examples: Head tilt Physical classification brings to light the numerous possible meanings that the same gesture may have, i.e. its polysemy. Here are some examples of a single head-tilt movement*
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components 
and the contextual meanings it may have (see also Chapter 8, Example 249, and Chapter 9, Examples 261, 264).
30 The head-tilt movement* that expresses ‘a view taken from a certain angle’ is to be found in numerous situations, all of which amount to indicating a particular viewpoint. This may be a personal point of view, for example, one’s own view: “Et c’est le sens, *me semble-t-il, de leur choix pour François Mitterrand” (And that’s the reason, *it seems to me, for their choice of François Mitterrand), or someone else’s point of view: “Il couronna sa soeur qui était la plus vertueuse, *disait-il” (He idolized his sister who was the most virtuous, *he used to say), or a restrictive point of view: “Oui, *m’enfin ça dépend comment” (Yes, *but, in the end, that depends on how); “Une nuance, *mais une nuance de taille” (A subtle difference, *but a big one). It may be a point of view that has not yet been considered. The gesture then represents an unexpected aspect and becomes synonymous with expressing surprise: “Tiens, j’y avais pas pensé!” (Ah, I hadn’t thought of that!). “Oui, *ça c’est rigolo” (Yes, *that’s funny) comments someone while rapidly tilting his head to one side as if considering what has been said. It may be a possible point of view, a way of looking at the question, representing a contingency, a hypothesis, an attempt: “*Pourquoi pas?” (*Why not?). 31 The oblique position of the head mimics a physical deformation, something which is not upright, or slanted, for example, a hat worn at an angle that could slip off: “*Il portait son chapeau tout de guinguois” (*He used to wear his hat completely skewed). 32 Maintaining the head in a tilted position expresses an attitude of tenderness, regardless of whether the gesturer is being tender or wants to evoke tenderness: “*Sois gentil, dis-moi oui” (*Be nice, say yes to me). The gestural representation allows for the possibility of role reversal. Hence, one may see two people talking with their heads tilted, one of them asking for sympathy and the other sympathizing, or one of them seducing and the other being seduced. Here are some examples: a friend asking you what is wrong or trying to cheer you up, a vendor in front of his boutique listening to a client with business-like indulgence, a child trying to wheedle pocket money out of his mother. As soon as there is the desire to receive or express tenderness, the head tilts.
For Morris (1977:â•›48), the head tilt (or ‘head cock’) is a “Relic Gesture”: The head cock action is a Relic Gesture stemming from juvenile movement of laying the head against the parent’s body, when seeking comfort or rest, or during tender moments of body-contact loving. In the adult, relic version, the head is no longer directed towards the companion’s body, but a cocking movement itself is sufficiently evocative to arouse protective feelings.
Montagner (1978:â•›282) cites sequences of actions that children perform when forming bonds or appeasing each other: “crouch down – smile – offer – tilt the head sideways;
 Elements of meaning in gesture
crouch down – touch the arm lightly – talk while pointing to something or someone – tilt the head sideways, etc.”3 He notes that similar sequences are observed between adults “when they are involved in an exchange which should lead to a privileged relationship (courtship, business deals, friendships, first meetings, etc.)”.4
33 Here are cases where the head tilt is not maintained as in the above examples (Example 32); it is rapid and brutal; it ‘marks a blow’. Brusquely lowering one’s head to one’s side* is a way of underlining an exaggeration (see Figure 29). The gesturer reacts to an exaggeration that someone has made: “Ben dis donc, je lui ai dit, je veux bien comprendre *mais il faut pas exagérer” (Hey, I told him, I’d like to understand *but don’t exaggerate) or to his own exaggeration as the case may be: “*Tout de même, j’aurais pu prévoir!” (*Honestly, I should have known!). y consulting the whole gestural system one can see that insistence is B expressed by an accentuated movement downwards, and that something negative is expressed by a brusque movement of turning the head sideways. In Example 33, the brusque lowering of the head to one side appears to be a synthetic product of these two movements (see Figure 30) to insist on something negative. In this case it is a polysign.
Figure 29.╇ Reaction to an exaggeration (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›69)
.â•… “s’accroupir – sourire – offrir – incliner latéralement la tête; s’accroupir – toucher légèrement le bras – parler tout en montrant quelque chose ou quelqu’un – incliner latéralement la tête, etc.” (Montagner 1978: 282). Translation MC. .â•… “lorsqu’ils sont conduits à un échange qui doit déboucher sur des relations privilégiées (conduites amoureuses, accords commerciaux, relations amicales, premières rencontres, etc.)” (Montagner 1978: 282). Translation MC.
Chapter 4.╇ Classification of referential gestures according to their priority components  Sideways Something negative
Downwards To insist
Lowering to one side To insist on something negative Figure 30.╇ A synthetic movement to insist (downwards) on something negative (sideways) (Calbris 1990:╛48)
In summary, the meaning of a head rotation is deduced from the projection of the curve that this spherical body part traces, either in one of the three planes – sagittal, frontal, or horizontal (see Figure 27) – or along one of the three directional axes – vertical (Up–Down), sagittal (Back–Front), or transverse (Left–Right). We have seen that increasing the degree of rotation in the sagittal plane causes a change of axis, with the head successively indicating a location in front (sagittal axis), above (vertical axis), and behind (sagittal axis, once again) (see Figure 28). Likewise, in the horizontal plane, the furthest degree of rotation no longer indicates a point situated on the right or left of the gesturer, but behind him. Moreover, the direction of gaze indicates the specific reason for moving the head. Head movement must also be interpreted in relation to other body parts (vertebral column, shoulder, eye gaze) or other meaningful movements in the system, such as emphatically lowering the head to insist or turning it away to the side to avoid something or someone (see Figure 30). In this chapter it has been shown that classifying gestures according to physical criteria reveals their contextual meanings and that identifying the component of priority relevance determines three major types of gesture (Table 6): body-focused gestures related to localization (the body part on which the gesture focuses attention); gestures in space related to the movement; and, neither one nor the other, head gestures constitute a separate type of gesture. Gestures in space are subdivided into straight-line gestures and curved gestures because their respective relevant components differ. For straight-line gestures, the most relevant are the directional axis of the movement (Figure 22) and the body part, with the plane in which it is oriented (Figure 23). On the other hand, when a gesture draws circles, the direction of the circular movement – clockwise versus anticlockwise – is of utmost relevance (Table 8).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
It has also been established that if the priority components essentially boil down to three (localization, movement and body part), the secondary components are numerous and are nonetheless important: repetition, type of repetition, symmetry and quality of movement, the use of one or both hands, and also the plane in the case of both straight-line gestures (Figure 26) and head gestures (Figure 27). As one would expect, the relevant physical feature and the gestural component may differ since the former can be the product of a component and a subcomponent (Examples 26–29) and, inversely, a gestural component may present different relevant physical features, as the discussion of head tilts (Examples 30–32) has demonstrated. Studying which physical elements of a gesture are relevant with regard to its contextual meaning opens up different perspectives on its physical components: on the one hand, the form of the movement (straight-line versus curved movement) and its direction (directional axis for straight-line movement versus clockwise or anticlockwise direction for curved movement); on the other hand, the form of the body part (configuration) and its direction (orientation with regard to the movement it produces). In short, one should take into account the form of either a body part or of a movement, and the direction of either a movement or of a body part when determining a gesture’s relevant physical features. Indeed, one can represent a hemispheric shape in a static way by a cupped hand or in a dynamic way by moving the palm in a curved movement. Moreover, one can indicate a direction forwards by producing a movement or just by orienting the fingertips. Thus gesture can produce a form or a direction in a static or a dynamic way. Generally, our gestures represent concrete entities which (inter)act or, alternatively, abstract entities conceived in the image of the physical world, in other words, forms representing entities that act or interact in certain directions. Form and direction predominate as scaffolding both in our gestural representations and in our perception of reality. Form represents the entity, and direction represents the goal of the action in question. This visual and simplified synthesis of reality that we have the habit of creating in gestural representation probably explains why geometric forms in comic strips are able to tell stories. Having now gained a panoramic view of how gestures can be classified according to the different physical elements which are semantically relevant, the next chapter focuses on one sub-class: straight-line hand gestures. Their frequency of use and the wide variety of their contextual meanings found in the corpora will be used to demonstrate my analytic approach to identifying gestural signs contained in co-speech gestures.
chapter 5
Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs In this chapter my method of analysing gesture data will be explained. This method can be applied to any corpus to test, and hopefully verify, my hypothesis that the referential function of gesture is assured by gestural signs, each one of which consists of an analogical link established between a relevant physical feature of the gesture and its particular meaning obtained from the context (see Introduction). I have already shown how to identify the contextual meanings of gestures (see Chapter 3), and how to distinguish the relevant physical features of gestures (see Chapter 4), in order to ascertain the analogical links that connect them. We shall now see how the symbolic functioning of gestures can be explained by discovering their underlying analogical links. The aim of my systematic analysis of gestures is to find a general explanation which is valid for each individual case. This assumes alternating between macro and micro points of view, the systems view and the in-depth analysis of selected data, or better still superimposing these, checking one against the other by constantly going back and forth between the two viewpoints, shifting the focus between the ensemble and the particular case, between the system of gestural signs and instances of their realization in utterances. My procedure for identifying gestural signs comprises several steps: (1) determine and code the relevant gestural components of each gesture in the corpus; (2) extract samples of gestures sorted by gestural components and with their accompanying text; (3) within each sample, determine the gestural referent(s) of the gestures, i.e. the notions(s) they express; (4) deduce the potential analogical link(s) between physical and semantic elements by comparing examples within and across samples; and lastly (5) validate the analogical link(s) revealed by this analysis (Description of the method of analysis: 1–5 stages). As a prerequisite to accounting for both the physical and the semantic aspects of the gestures in one’s corpus, one needs to code data in the most objective way possible. So, to begin with, some considerations that one should be aware of are discussed (About coding).
1.â•… About coding Objectivizing the data to be analysed implies coding, which poses several problems. To achieve optimal objectivity, coding must capture the physical elements of the data,
 Elements of meaning in gesture
it must be exhaustive and, if possible, common to all the researchers carrying out the analysis. In practice, each researcher adopts a coding system, preferably economic, adapted to the particular framework of his research. Note that achieving the ideal of scientific objectivity when coding a corpus is a delusion, because coding depends on perception, an essentially pre-interpretive and therefore subjective activity. Objectivity lies more in recognizing the subjective perceptual biases that may possibly enter into the interpretation of spontaneous and non-conscious co-speech gestures. These are more difficult to perceive than linguistic units in sign language, where the relation between a sign and its meaning is more or less established, as in all languages (Stokoe et al. 1976). One wants the coding of gesture data to be precise, compact, practical, and readable, and it is not a trivial matter to satisfy all these conditions. How do you code a hand that changes its configuration during the course of one single movement? Is it one gesture or a compound sequence of two successive gestures? And if it really is just one gesture, is its realization influenced by the preceding gesture (after a return to the rest position), or by the following gesture it anticipates? The choice one makes about how one should interpret what one sees will determine the coding. Supposing that we have solved the problem of objectivity, a gesture that has been coded by someone for a particular purpose, for example, a statistical analysis, must be easy to decode by someone else with a different research aim who wants to study the example. As our comparative analysis of the data aims to reveal the semanticity of co-speech gestures, when transcribing an utterance it is practical to insert the coded gesture [in square brackets] in the text the moment it begins. The duration of the gesture is given by marking the synchronous verbal unit in italics. On the vocal level, the scansions and melodic cuts other than those usually indicated in written text are notated by a straight vertical line “|”, whereas the tonic syllable is indicated by boldface characters. Indeed, coding the intonation is indispensable for distinguishing the referential function from the demarcative function of the gesture (see Chapter 3, The vocal context). To illustrate how coding the intonation enables us to distinguish these two functions of gesture, here are two different interpretations of an analogous verbal unit “c’est (absolument) normal” (it’s (absolutely) normal) accompanied by a lowering of the head [head.d]. The vocal stress alone allows one to differentiate between the sign of confirmation and the insistence on normality: 34 Cette insécurité, nous l↜’abordons sous l↜’angle policier, [head.d] c’est normal This insecurity, we approach it from a police angle, [head.d] it↜’s normal
35 Mais comment ça ferait-il pas un écho dans l↜’opinion euh … C’↜est [head.d] absolument normal
But how would that make an echo in the opinion er … It↜’s [head.d] absolutely normal
Chapter 5.╇ Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 
Synchronous with a vocal stress, lowering the head reinforces the insistence on “absolutely”. In contrast, as a large isolated movement executed without a jerk as in the preceding example, it is to be interpreted as a gesture of confirmation which, synonymous with “yes”, paraphrases “it’s normal”. On the kinesic level, how far should we go when analysing a gesture? It is advisable to note everything that is semantically relevant. This may be the body part and/or its configuration and/or its orientation and/or its localization and/or its movement. In most cases, the configuration is maintained while complementary information is provided by the movement. In the following example, the palms facing each other in the Frame configuration [∏] delimit the abstract object in question, i.e. “the situation”. The configuration does not change as long as the situation remains the subject; this does not prevent relevant changes in the movement of this configuration. “The situation”, in the future, is located on the right [.r]. Since it is difficult to foretell, a slight shaking [.sha] of the re-centred hands [.c] expresses instability, then, as this difficulty must be overcome, the difficult situation will be left behind on the left [.l]:
36 [∏] On disait: la situation [.r] après | [.c, sha] sera tellement difficile [.l] qu’il faut la devancer et qu’il faut faire les élections avant.
[∏] People were saying: the situation [.r] after | [.c, sha] will be so difficult [.l] that it will be necessary to overcome it and that it will be necessary to have elections beforehand.
2.â•… Description of the method of analysis We shall now look closely at the steps that were followed in order to deduce the meanings of the French co-speech gestures found in the corpora referred to in this book and that are readily applicable to the analysis of other gesture data: 1. Code gestural components One creates a database consisting of examples of gestures together with the transcripts of the verbal utterances with which they occur. Each gesture is coded according to its relevant components (see Chapter 4). This coding is explained in detail below. 2. Extract samples sorted by gestural components The database structure should enable one to compile lists of gestures with their accompanying text and sort them according to one or more physical components that they have in common.1 For example, one can extract a sample of all the gestures that have
.╅ See Calbris (1979), in which a list of co-speech gestures only using the raised index finger are analysed.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
the same direction of movement (downwards), and within that sample, subgroups listed according to their different configurations (Frame, Right Angle, etc.). 3. Determine the gestural referent The common semantic element (notion) expressed by the gesture is deduced by comparing the verbal content of the utterances within each subgroup. This common notion is the gestural referent. 4. Deduce the potential analogical link between the physical and semantic elements One can thus establish a potential relation of analogy between particular physical element(s) and a notion. In some cases the same physical element may correspond to different notions, i.e. it is potentially polysemous and therefore has several potential analogical links. 5. Validate the analogical link Each analogical link is validated and specified more precisely by analysing ‘gesture variants’, i.e. different gestures that express the same notion.
2.1â•… Code gestural components The precise method of coding described below essentially concerns straight-line gestures in space because, as we saw in Chapter 4 (Movement: gestures in space), most of their other components are also relevant. They can be broken down into the following major physical components: the body part that makes the gesture (hand(s) or digit(s); head gestures are excluded here); the configuration that the hand(s) or digit(s) take on; the plane in case of a flat hand configuration; the orientation of the palm or the fingertips depending on the configuration; the movement of the body part (form and direction); whether the right, left, or both hands are the moving body parts (laterality/ symmetry); the localization of the gesture, i.e. the body level at which it takes place or, in the case of a body-focused gesture, the body part targeted by the gesture. All these gestural components may convey meaning.
2.1.1â•… Configuration The hand takes on diverse forms (see Figure 31.1–16). It can close into a Fist, rolled up into itself; or it can close into a Pyramid, with the fingertips touching to form a point; or it can be partly open, with the fingers spread out and curved as if they were about to pick up a grapefruit, thus taking on the form of a mechanical grapple or a Bowl; or the fingers, joined together, may form a Right Angle with the palm (see Figure 31.1–4); or the hand can be completely open, i.e. flat. Figure 312 shows these diverse manual configurations along with their name and coding in square brackets. To help the reader to .â•… The illustrations in Figure 31 are reproduced in Appendix A for easy reference.
Chapter 5.╇ Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 
visualize a gesture when looking at its code, there is a certain iconic analogy between a hand configuration and the typographic character used to represent it. Furthermore, the characters that have been chosen are widely available.
1. Fist []
2. Pyramid [∆]
3. Bowl [Ω]
4. Right Angle [T]
5. Level Hand [=]
6. Palm Forwards [H]
7. Rigid Hand [Iu]
8. Oblique Palm [√]
9. Frame [∏]
10. Open Book [V]
11. Rigid Hand [If]
12. Index [↑]
13. Wide Gap [/ /]
14. Narrow Gap [//]
15. Finger Pinch [<]
16. Ring [O]
Figure 31.╇ Denomination and iconic coding of configurations (Calbris 2003d:╛29)
 Elements of meaning in gesture
2.1.2â•… Configuration and plane If the palm is flat (see Figure 31.5–8), it can readily press against a surface in the horizontal plane. A Level Hand on a table top or parallel to the ground is represented by the code [=], which depicts the horizontal lines of the palm and the ground. Still held flat, it can also press against the frontal plane in front of oneself, Palm Forwards, as if it were pushing or posting something up; the letter [H] approximately outlines the rectangular shape formed by the palm held up in front of the body. Still flat, but this time held in the sagittal plane, the hand could chop something in two; this is called the Rigid Hand configuration, and as it resembles a vertical line when viewed from the front, it is represented by the code [I]. Whenever it is flat and extended outwards, the palm designates or presents something: oriented in an intermediary plane, neither horizontal nor vertical, it is called Oblique Palm, and its code is meant to represent the profile of the right hand designating something, with the line of the thumb forming an angle with the line of the fingers held close together and stretched out [√]. In order to be more concise, the configuration of the body part (flat hand) and its orientation in a particular plane are often conflated (see Figure 32): –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi
in a horizontal plane, the palm facing downwards is level [=]: Level Hand, in a frontal plane, the palm faces forwards [H]: Palm Forwards, in a sagittal plane, the rigid hand makes an arrow [I]: Rigid Hand, in an oblique plane, the palm facing upwards is oblique [√]: Oblique Palm.
Horizontal plane
Frontal plane
Sagittal plane
Oblique plane
[=]
[H]
[If]
[√]
Level Hand
Palm Forwards
Rigid Hand
Oblique Palm
Figure 32.╇ Coding a flat hand configuration oriented in different planes
The use of both flat hands produces particular configurations (see Figure 31.9–10). The Frame formed by vertical palms facing each other with the fingertips pointing
Chapter 5.╇ Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 
forwards, which seems to delimit the space enclosed between them, is represented iconically by the typographic frame [∏]. Sometimes obliquely oriented palms are brought together symmetrically, even joined along their outer edges, in a gesture of offering; this image of an Open Book is depicted by the sign [V]. The description of gestures made with the fingers follows the same coding principles, especially the iconic coding of the typographic sign (see Figure 31.12–16). Hence an arrow pointing upwards [↑] represents the Index gesture made by lifting the index finger upwards. The particular direction in which the index finger is pointing is indicated by a supplementary code that specifies its orientation. For example, one can code the index finger pointing downwards [↑d] or towards the interlocutor [↑i], situated on the left [↑il].
2.1.3â•… Orientation Before considering its displacement, the orientation of a hand configuration is coded according to the directional axes: the vertical axis opposes up [u] and down [d]; the sagittal axis opposes forwards [f], away from oneself, and backwards [b], towards oneself; the transverse axis opposes right [r] and left [l]. The reference point for determining a configuration’s orientation is its relevant physical feature; this may be the palm, the edge of the hand, or the directional axis of fingers, depending on the configuration. The part of the hand that leads it in the direction of movement or could offer resistence to an object situated perdendicular to its movement path determines its code. For example, the orientation of the configurations given in brackets are the directions determined by different parts of the hand: the fingertips pointing to a target (Rigid Hand or Pyramid configuration) or an object to be grasped (Pyramid or Bowl configuration, in which case the orientation of the fingers and the palm is identical); the surface of the palm facing (Rigid Hand) and thus able to offer resistence to a contrary force (stop, cover, hold back, crush) or able to apply force against a surface (push, wipe, slap); the edge of the hand (Rigid Hand) that can strike, split, or cut an object. The semantic potential of the gesture as a sign depends on the physical possibilities of the gesture as an action that occurs in everyday life (see Chapter 1, The gestural sign drawn from physical experience). 2.1.4â•… Straight-line movement Defined in terms of its form and orientation, the hand moves in a specific direction. The code for movement differs from that of orientation only by the presence of a full stop [.]. A movement upwards is coded [.u], downwards [.d], forwards [.f], backwards [.b], to the right [.r], to the left [.l], and towards the centre [.c]. Thus the forward movement [.f] of the edge of a Rigid Hand oriented upwards would be coded [Iu.f]. If the direction of a movement merges two orientations, then both directions are coded, for example, downwards and forwards [.df]; upwards and to the left [.ul].
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Whereas the direction of movement is indicated by a letter, the type of movement is depicted, as far as possible, by a schematic code: [-><-] for moving towards each other – closing, [↔] for moving apart – opening, and [.)] for a curved Â�movement. When coding movement patterns which are multidirectional, a description of the movement is abbreviated: [.osc](illation), [.rot](ation), [.sha] (ke), and [.tra](nsverse).
2.1.5â•… Laterality/symmetry The use of the right hand [R] or the left hand [L] is indicated by a capital letter at the beginning of the code. For example, a Level Hand on the left is represented by [L =], and the right hand closed in a Fist by [R �]. Apart from the particular bimanual configurations [∏] and [V], the symmetrical use of the hands is coded by doubling the manual code: both hands closed in Fists [��], in Pyramids [∆∆], half open in the Bowl configuration [ΩΩ], bent at Right Angles [TT], flat in different planes, i.e. facing forwards [HH], downwards [==], or upwards and presented obliquely in a gesture of obviousness [√√]. Likewise, the bimanual Ring configuration, in which the thumbs and the index fingers of both hands touch, is coded [OO]. 2.1.6â•… Localization In the case of body-focused gestures, localization means the body part targeted by gesture and the codes for these are given in Chapter 4 (Table 7). But here, in the case of gestures in space, the level of the body at which a gesture occurs is only coded when it is relevant. The gesture space between a table at waist height and the shoulders is considered to be the norm and, therefore, not relevant. For this reason, one only codes the level of gestures in a high position, i.e. at face level or higher, [u]. The code for localization is indicated immediately in front of the code for its configuration. For example, the Frame configuration with the palms facing each other at face level is coded [u∏]. 2.1.7â•… Eye gaze Taking into account the primordial role of gaze in the orchestration of the movements expressing the speaker’s intentions, the eye is coded iconically by a dot [•]. For example, gaze directed at the Frame configuration is coded [• on ∏], directed at the interlocutor [•i], and at the interlocutor on the right [•ir]. It comes after the code for the hand(s), from which it is separated by a ‘+’ sign, e.g. [R √ir + •ir]. Likewise, for simultaneous gestures of the hand(s) and head, the manual gesture is coded first, e.g. [R T.d + head.d]. The coded description indicates, always in the same order, the hand used, its localization, if relevant (only for gestures at face level or higher), its configuration, its orientation, and then its movement. For example, the right hand [R], closed in a Fist [R �], turned inwards towards the speaker so that from his perspective it is facing backwards
Chapter 5.╇ Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 
[R � b], moves forwards [R � b.f]. Here is another example: the left [L] Rigid Hand [L I], fingers pointing upwards [L Iu], moves forwards [L Iu.f] so that its edge advances. In the first case, the forward movement of the fist represents the effort required to advance. In the second, the slow forward movement of the edge of the hand evokes the prow of a boat which, ploughing through the waves, progresses towards a cape on the distant horizon (see Chapter 3, Example 22).
2.1.8â•… Example of coding By way of example, here is a one minute extract from the television programme “Journal Télévisé” broadcast on France-2 on July 3 1997. Lionel Jospin (LJ), a former French Prime Minister, is replying to questions posed by the journalists Bruno Masure (BM) and Arlette Chabot (AC). 37 AC: Ce sont des exigences contradictoires. Qu’est-ce qui est possible? AC: Those are contradictory demands. What is possible? LJ: Mais si on m’explique…Ben d’abord je je, j’hérite d’une situation, donc je la traite telle qu’elle est. Ensuite, je | décide | [OO] de ne [↔] masquer | aucune réalité, c’est quand même une méthode | de vérité | que je dois aux Français. [• on L Ω.l] S’il y a plus de trois millions de chômeurs, je peux pas dire qu’ils sont pas là; [• on R Ω.r (estimated)] s’il y a un déficit de la protection sociale, j’peux pas faire semblant de ne pas le voir; si [• sur ∏] je ne veux pas casser la croissance parce que | les Françaises et les Français | [�� b] veulent [.f] un dynamisme de l’économie, [• on ∏] je ne peux pas prendre des mesures | qui cassent cette croissance. En même temps | [R √ir + •ir segments] j’ai le rendez-vous de la monnaie unique, nous avons le rendez-vous de la monnaie unique et | nous voulons le faire parce que c’est nécessaire. Nous verrons comment nous irons parce que, pour les critères qui permettent le passage à la monnaie unique, on ne parle que des 3% des déficits publics. Ben y a d’autres critères hein, y a l’inflation – nos performances sont bonnes -, y a l’↜endettement – nous sommes en dessous du critère – [R u=] donc il faut pas parler que de ce critère qui arrange peut-être certains de nos partenaires mais [R =.d] ça n’est pas le seul. Alors, moi je prends ces réalités, [V segments] ensuite nous dirons aux Français, le gouvernement dira aux Français, [↔] les ministres et moi-même: voilà, nous essayons [∏] de définir un chemin qui tient compte de ces données contradictoires, elles existent, LJ: But if someone explains to me…Well first of all I I, I inherit a situation, therefore I treat it as it is. Next, I | decide | [OO] not to [↔] cover up | any reality, that is nevertheless a method | of truth | that I owe to the French.[• on L Ω.l] If there are more than three million people unemployed, I can’t say that they’re not there; [• on R Ω.r (estimated)] if there is a deficit in social protection, I can’t pretend not to see it; if [• on ∏] I can’t stop growth because |the French (feminine
 Elements of meaning in gesture
gender) and the French (masculine gender) | [��b] want [.f] a dynamism in the economy [• on ∏] I can’t take measures | which stop this growth. At the same time, | [R √ir + •ir segments] I↜’ve got the time schedule for the single currency, we’ve got the time schedule for the single currency and | we want to do it because it’s necessary. We shall see how things go because, regarding the criteria which permit the transition to the single currency, one only talks about the public deficit of 3%. Well there are other criteria hmm, there’s inflation – our performance is good – there’s the deficit – we’re below the criterion – [R u=] therefore one must not only talk about this criterion which maybe suits some of our partners but [R =.d] it isn’t the only one. So, me, I take these realities, [V segments] then we shall say to the French [people], the government will say to the French [people], [↔] the ministers and myself: there you are, we are trying [∏] to define a course that takes into account these contradictory facts, they exist, AC: Ca sera étroit. AC: That will be [a] narrow [course].
2.2â•… Extract samples sorted by gestural components Coding enables one to extract data by physical elements in order to compare their semantic contribution in different verbal contexts, and then to verify that this semantic contribution, whatever it may be, is by nature analogical. Figure 33 shows that by comparing samples sorted by gestural components (top level) one can infer their respective semantic contribution to the utterance, i.e. the notion(s) expressed by each gesture (middle level), and then deduce the analogical links connecting these notions to their relevant physical features (bottom level). The gestures one compares only differ by one gestural component. For example, in Sample 2 read from right to left respectively, the examples extracted all have the same Frame configuration [∏], the same configuration and localization at face level or higher [u∏], and the same configuration that is lowered [∏.d]. But the emerging common notion conveyed by the gesture [∏.d] (Examples 53–60) turns out to be surprising and ambiguous. To obtain more clarity, Sample 1 expands the scope of the study to include other gestures characterized by the same downward movement of the hand but in different configurations, Rigid Hand [I] and Right Angle [T]. In this way, the more comparisons one makes, the deeper and finer one’s analysis of the analogical link becomes, and hence the clearer and more specific are the results. So now we have two samples, each one comprising three different gestures, one of which, [∏.d], is common to Samples 1 and 2. All the gestures in Sample 1 have the same movement, and in Sample 2 they all have the same configuration. The corpus here comprises six television interviews with Lionel Jospin.
Defined objective
relevant physical features = u∏
Categorical or Decisive character
relevant physical feature = .d of the edge of the hand
Example 66 (text) ... (text) 71 (text) 77 (text) 82 (text)
Notion
Example 53 (text) ... (text) 60 (text)
Example 61 (text) ... (text) 65 (text)
Localization u Configuration ∏
Notion
Movement .d Configuration ∏
Movement .d Configuration T
relevant physical features = different aspects of ∏
Range of notions Path Framework Delimitation & Measure Defined abstract object
Example 72 (text) ... (text) 81 (text) 83 (text) ... (text) 98 (text)
Configuration ∏
Sample 2
Figure 33.╇ Researching the motivation of the gestural sign, the analogical link between a physical feature and the notion expressed (Copple)
analogical links
Movement .d Configuration I Orientation f Example 40 (text) ... (text) 42 (text) 44 (text) ... (text) 50 (text)
Sample 1
Chapter 5.╇ Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 
 Elements of meaning in gesture
2.2.1â•… Same movement, different gestures: Sample 1 (40–65) Here we are concerned with the downward movement [.d] of the edge of the hand with one Rigid Hand [If.d], both hands in the Frame configuration [∏.d], and one hand folded in the Right Angle configuration [T.d] (see Figure 34) that recur in gestures in the corpus.
1. Rigid Hand downwards [If.d]
2. Frame downwards [∏.d]
3. Right Angle downwards [T.d]
Figure 34.╇ Same movement, different gestures: Sample 1 (Calbris 2003d: 144)
One can lower a Rigid Hand in order to emphasize a word (Example 38) or to segment an entire phrase (Example 39):
38 Et donc, si le Président de la République, [head.d + R If.d] quand le Président de la République…
And therefore, if the President of the Republic, [head.d + R If.d] when the President of the Republic… 39 et j↜’avais dit que [L If.d segments] ce rattrapage serait fait intégralement. Alors nous avons déjà… and I had said that [L If.d segments] this realignment will be done integrally. Well we have already…
These two examples are not included in Sample 1 because [If.d] only serves a demarcative function; it does not serve the referential function that is the object of study here. Physical subdivision of Sample 1.â•… The aim is to identify what the gesture [If.d] may signify and if its meaning differs from those of the two other gestures [∏.d] and [T.d] in the corpus.3 Firstly, the examples are sorted according to the configuration they have in common. If.d, lowering a Rigid Hand (see Figure 34.1)
40 One has to look for methods | [that are] quite supple, [L If.d] not be ideological, 41 As for example they have done it | concerning Iraq [R If.d] through a decision of the United Nations.
.╅ Transcripts of the original French utterances are to be found in Appendix B.
Chapter 5.╇ Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 
42 If it’s flexibility, [R If.d] it’s social regression 43 [R u=, If.d] this drop in a relative insecurity 44 unemployed people aged more than 55 years [L If.d] who have paid contributions for 40 years to the Social Security 45 So there is [L If.d] one measure that is a measure of incitement to work, strong, and I believe innovative. 46 [L If.d] 3%. Today, one forgets all that and people say to us: 47 Therefore, [L If.d] our action, it’s going to be conducted in the long term, 48 to which the United Nations, [L If.d] legitimately, had imposed constraints 49 [L I.u lifted like a cleaver] On this point, we conceive of things in the way [.d chop] [that is] the clearest. 50 And anyway, I↜’ve always thought that [L If.d] constructing Europe does not mean erasing France. 51 and [•r on R If.d] while/by making a break [that’s] quite fundamental | with the past. 52 Well yes, [• on L If.d] we want to cut the link between political power and the judges and the magistrates.
∏.d, lowering the Frame configuration (see Figure 34.2)
53 But [∏.d] I kept my commitment. 54 I could [∏.d] not even decide if there was any truth in the matter 55 And therefore, [∏.d] not for one moment did I conceal my thoughts from them 56 [∏.d] In any case we, it will be our responsibility to take decisions. 57 and moreover by referendum, [∏.d] on this question. 58 [u∏.d] The fact of having a single currency, there is no longer any speculation. 59 The euro [∏.d] that must be an asset or a springboard for more growth 60 slowly [∏.d] but in a determined way
T.d, lowering the Right Angle configuration (see Figure 34.3)
61 62 63 64 65
We, we want to be [L T.d] volunteers in the struggle for employment. [R T.d] who decides [R T.fu] to propose a project to make a law to ratify it but [L T.d] in any case, at least that. [L T.d] and there, the control remains to be pushed right to the limit. [R T.d + head.d] I am sure that this movement is going to continue
2.2.2â•… Same configuration, different gestures: Sample 2 (53–60, 66–95) Now we consider different gestures performed with the Frame configuration [∏]. Physical subdivision of Sample 2.â•… The gestures in Sample 2 are likewise sorted according to the relevant physical components they have in common, which results in an initial physical subdivision separating [u∏] and [∏.d] from [∏].
 Elements of meaning in gesture
∏.d, lowering the Frame configuration 53–60 are common to both Samples 1 and 2 (see Figure 33). u∏, Frame configuration held at face level
66 At first I wanted a narrow government, which [u∏] would be a close-knit,compact team, an executive, [.d] that’s made for acting. The diversity is in Parliament, 67 The diversity is in Parliament, [u∏] the executive that must be on the contrary, the unity even if in this government, one can 68 [u∏] If one tries to find nevertheless the main reason, 69 a break with equality in favour [u∏] of districts or schools 70 I wanted to ask, by my presence in Brussels, in a demonstration, [u∏] a European question which is the question of employment in Europe, which is the question of the decisions 71 And therefore, [u∏] it is not true that things [.r] are going to end | [.l] as they would have ended | if there had not been 77 [u∏] in order to prepare measures which, 82 It’s [u∏] notably this perspective of the reduction in working hours | that we are going to open
∏, Frame configuration
72 I was [∏] facing them, their representatives 73 to make a sort | of thorough examination | [∏] of the matter | of the industry | automobile4 74 You have nevertheless seen this failure euh | [∏] of privatisation. 75 And then what will guide me in the end, it’s that [∏] I↜’m attached to [.d] service public,5 76 [∏] I think that what is important, it’s that the ministers, 77 [u∏] in order to prepare measures which, [∏-><-] in the autumn, will take into account realities such as they exist in practice, 78 You believe that | one invents jobs like that? No, [∏] it is necessary to build them up | and to create them | 79 during the whole holiday period | [∏] and at the rentrée 6, these plans are ready
.â•… English word order: ‘automobile industry’. .â•… English word order: ‘public service’. .â•… The rentrée is return to work in France at the beginning of September after the summer holidays are over.
Chapter 5.╇ Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 
80 [∏] And they want [.d] all 7 a consultation, they want to be able to prepare
81 [∏] The meeting in the autumn | will have permitted
83 OK | [∏] here are the lessons to be learned, OK
84 one would have to naturally [∏] take into account this drift and
85 one has to find [∏] the right path between
86 if we have to make an effort, notably | [∏] to avoid | a slippage
87 but [∏] in relation to which | we have, we, made adjustments
88 [∏] It’s within this framework, through dialogue with Parliament
89 the project of the Law of Finances | [∏r.i] which will be presented | to Parliament | in the autumn.
90 there you see, we are trying [∏] to define a path which takes into account
91 [∏] to a certain extent in order to find a way [that is] practicable
92 which takes into account [∏] these contradictions,
93 in any case [∏] it’s in relation to that that I would proceed
94 is [∏] that what we have to do?
95 [∏.l] But it’s not me who signed it and the President of the Republic said to me
96 a certain number of discussions and negotiations [∏] so that we came to a kind of conclusion [∏.f] together in Amsterdam
97 [∏] We have also | really worked in the spirit of the coalition on a certain number of African issues.
98 [∏] Therefore, I think that this coalition [∏] is being led as it has to be led.
2.3â•… Determine the gestural referent Let us continue by analysing Sample 2 from a semantic point of view in order to progressively determine the numerous gestural referents it comprises.
2.3.1â•… Primary semantic subdivision within Sample 2 We begin by comparing the verbal contexts of gestures in which the same hand configuration recurs: the Frame configuration in u∏, ∏.d and ∏. A common notion appears to be expressed by u∏ (Defined objective) and a different one by ∏.d (Categorical or decisive character), whereas ∏ alone seems to express a range of different notions. It seems as if two relevant components in combination express one notion quite precisely, whereas the semantic contribution of one single component is ambiguous. .â•… English word order: ‘they all want’.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
u∏ – Defined objective In the first of the six interviews analysed here, the idea of ‘defined objective’ represented by this gesture is only explicitly expressed verbally in terms that imply a goal (in italics), such as: that must be, on the contrary, the unity (Example 67); If one tries to find nevertheless (Example 68); in order to prepare measures (Example 77); this perspective of the reduction in working hours (Example 82). Sometimes the gesture appears at the moment when the goal is being described verbally: I wanted … a close-knit, compact team (Example 66); I wanted to ask … a European question which (Example 70); a break with equality in favour of districts or schools (Example 69). ∏.d – Categorical or Decisive character This gesture’s categorical or decisive character deduced from the verbal contexts in which it occurs (Examples 53–60) could be analogically linked to lowering the edge of the hand. To verify this analogical link, we have to see if other gestures with this physical characteristic (lowering the edge of the hand, Figure 34) imply the same meaning (see below 4.2). ∏ – Differents meanings! The range of notions expressed by the Frame configuration on its own are obtained by a secondary semantic subdivision and shown in Figure 33 (bottom right).
2.3.2â•… Secondary semantic subdivision within Sample 2 By comparing the verbal contexts of the gestures in which only the Frame configuration recurs as a relevant component, we obtain a broad range of gestural referents, namely, the notions of path, framework, delimitation and measure, defined abstract object, and face-to-face (see Figure 35.1–4). ∏ – Path
85 one has to find [∏] the right path between 90 there you see, we are trying [∏] to define a path which takes into account
91 [∏] to a certain extent in order to find a way [that is] practicable (see Figure 35.1)
∏ – Framework
88 [∏] It’s within this framework, through dialogue with Parliament
∏ – Delimitation and Measure 77 [u∏] in order to prepare measures which, [∏-><-] in the autumn, will take into account realities such as they exist in practice, (see Figure 35.3), 79 during the whole holiday period | [∏] and at the rentrée, these plans are ready In the above data, the Frame configuration only delimits a time period: in the autumn; at the rentrée.
Chapter 5.╇ Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 
∏ – Defined abstract object
73 to make a sort | of thorough examination | [∏] of the matter | of the industry | automobile 74 You have nevertheless seen this failure euh | [∏] of privatisation. 75 And then what will guide me in the end, it’s that [∏] I’↜m attached to service public [.d] 76 [∏] I think that what is important, it’s that the ministers, 78 You believe that | one invents jobs like that? No, [∏] it is necessary to build them up | and to create them | 80 [∏] And they want [.d] all a consultation, they want to be able to prepare 81 [∏] The meeting in the autumn | will have permitted 83 OK | [∏] here are the lessons to be learned, OK 84 one would have to naturally [∏] take into account this drift and 86 if we have to make an effort, notably | [∏] to avoid | a slippage 87 but [∏] in relation to which | we have, we, made adjustments 89 the project of the Law of Finances | [∏r.i] which will be presented | to Parliament | in the autumn 92 which takes into account [∏] these contradictions, 93 in any case [∏] it’s in relation to that that I would proceed 94 is [∏] that what we have to do? 95 [∏.l] But it’s not me who signed it and the President of the Republic said to me
‘Defined abstract object’ is the notion that is both the most frequent (16 out of 38 occurrences) and, a priori, the most abstract meaning that gestures with the Frame configuration express. Why is this configuration used to represent an abstract object? Which verbal indices do we find in the data? The object named in the utterance is always preceded by a definite article (of the matter; of the privatisation; the meeting in the autumn; the lessons to be learned) or by a demonstrative article, pronoun or construction (this drift; these contradictions; it’s in relation to that; is that; what is important; it’s x). These are cases in which an abstract object is conjointly defined by gesture and speech. And in the other cases? The gesture accompanies the answer to an underlying question. What is guiding me? My attachment to public service. Which jobs? The jobs to be created. What do they want? A consultation. What effort is to be made? To avoid that. Here again, the abstract object in question is conjointly delimited by gesture and defined by speech. ∏ – Face-to-face
72 I was [∏] facing them, their representatives
This meaning is not confirmed in the rest of this corpus. Could it be explained by the fingertips pointing forwards, towards a fictitious partner or by the palms-partners
 Elements of meaning in gesture
facing each other? There are no other examples in the corpus to validate this analogical link.
to find a way [that is] practicable 1. Path
by establishing a framework 2. Framework
in the autumn 3. Delimitation
the problem of the UNEDIC 4. Defined abstract object
Figure 35.╇ Polysemy of the Frame configuration (Calbris 2003d: 88)
2.4â•… D educe the potential analogical link(s) between physical and semantic elements By implementing step 3 we have obtained a list of the gestural referents in Sample 2, i.e. all the notions expressed by u∏, ∏.d and ∏ in the gestures in these examples. The semantic subdivisions corresponding to the three physical subdivisions of Sample 2 give contrasting results: one gestural referent is ‘defined objective’ expressed by u∏, another is ‘categorical or decisive character’ expressed by ∏.d, but a range of different gestural referents are expressed by ∏ alone. Indeed, even within a half-hour interview, the duration of interview 1, the polysemy of the Frame configuration in
Chapter 5.╇ Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 
examples where it is the only relevant gestural component is striking. It evokes very different notions deduced from the verbal context, namely: path, framework, delimitation, defined abstract object, and lastly, entities opposing each other face-to-face, or so it seems.
2.4.1â•… Different analogical links in the Frame configuration in Sample 2 What is it about the Frame configuration that associates it with these different meanings? What are the relevant physical features which this hand shape has that enable it to analogically represent each different notion? Figure 36 allows one to visualize the different analogical links found to be present in the Frame configuration in the examples in Sample 2: a space closed on both sides but open in front of oneself (a. path), a delimited and restricted space (b. framework), a space that has been crossed, i.e. a distance measured between two obstacles (c. delimitation-measure), or a delimited volume seen as a virtual object held between the hands (d. defined abstract object). In short, the Frame configuration is polysemous: it comprises different gestural signs, each of which is established by an analogical link between some physical elements of the configuration and its contextual meaning. The configuration actually offers several physical elements since it presents (1) an empty space between (2) two parallel boundaries, (3) pointing forwards, (4) and movable towards or away from each other; (5) its two parallel vertical surfaces delimit (6) a volume that, in turn, defines an entity, either contained within boundaries or containing something, which the palms could be holding. The context activates particular physical elements of the hand configuration which in combination with each other represent an appropriate image (see Figure 36). Images :
↑↑
→|_|←
|↔|
|X|
&
a.
b.
c.
d.
Meanings :
Path
Framework
Delimitation and Measure
Defined abstract object
Figure 36.╇ Images conveyed by the Frame configuration ∏
Now let us consider which notions are conveyed when a second gestural component, such as localization [u] or movement [.d], recurs in conjunction with the configuration [∏]. The gesture that expresses the notion of ‘defined objective’ (Examples 66–71, 77, 82) is distinguished by its localization. The elevated position of the Frame configuration [u∏] seems to be distinctive and to determine the meaning ‘distant object’, a ‘defined object to be reached’. It is as if the localization activates one of the potential meanings of the Frame configuration (a defined abstract object) with which it interacts to signify (a distant defined abstract object to be reached).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Two analogical links are established between this particular combination of physical and semantic elements: the configuration refers to (1) an abstract object and (2) its distant location is evoked by the height at which the gesture is performed, supplemented by the gaze targeting the distant objective. But then, what does the lowering of the Frame configuration [∏.d] mean? What is (or are) the natural link(s) between this gesture and something that could have a ‘categorical or decisive character’ discovered above (see step 3.1). The answer emerges by making further comparisons between notions associated with its two relevant components: movement and configuration. We therefore select and compare examples of lowering the edge of the hand in different configurations, i.e. all the gestures in Sample 1.
2.4.2â•… The same analogical link in the different gestures in Sample 1 Let us reconsider the examples in Sample 1 in which the gestures [If.d], [∏.d] and [T.d] shown in Figure 34 recur. Table 9 summarizes the results of their semantic subdivision (step 3). The [If.d] sample reveals that lowering the Rigid Hand can have several meanings. In Example 43, dropping from an elevated position, it represents a fall. In Examples 51 and 52, the gaze directed towards the gesture draws attention to the movement that cuts downwards. In the other examples, lowering the Rigid hand [If.d] and the two other types of lowering a configuration, [∏.d] and [T.d], all seem to have similar meanings. Table 9.╇ Gestural referents of each gesture in Sample 1 Physical subdivision
Semantic subdivision Different notions expressed by each gesture
Gesture [If.d] [∏.d] [T.d]
Categorical or Decisive character Examples 40–50 (except 43) Examples 53–60 Examples 61–65
Cutting 51, 52
Fall 43
Table 9 shows that examples of all three gestures, [If.d], [∏.d] and [T.d] have been found to express ‘categorical’ or ‘decisive character’ in the data. It is a notion common to them all. So which physical feature do they all have in common? It is lowering the edge of the hand, regardless of the configuration. It is not the combination of the movement and the configuration that is relevant here, but the combination of the movement with a common element of each configuration, the edge of the hand. It is the lowering of the edge of the hand that analogically expresses the notion of ‘categorical or decisive character’ and is therefore a gestural sign which all three gestures have in common. By comparing these examples we have discovered the gesture variants of a common notion!
Chapter 5.╇ Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 
Let us now study some of these examples more closely to further differentiate their semantic contribution to the utterances in which they recur. One realizes that lowering the edge of the Rigid Hand [If.d] alone can kinesically account for the notion of cutting expressed by this gesture:
51 and [•r on R If.d] by making a break [that’s] quite fundamental | with the past
52 Well yes, [• on L If.d] we want to cut the link between political power and the judges and the magistrates
This gesture effectively has the greatest physical force at its disposal. The lowered edges of the hands in the Right Angle [T.d] and the Frame [∏.d] configurations – gestural signs which, incidentally, are less connected to the physical act from which they are derived – just account for semantic derivations of the notion of cutting, namely decision or categorical character: ‘it is that and not otherwise’. The categorical aspect, it too, stems from the perceptual schema of cutting, of separating: ‘that is it; that is not it’. By analogy with the cutting edge of a blade or an axe, lowering the edge of the hand relates back to cutting, physically and psychologically ‘slicing’, i.e. to deciding, to stopping something, to being categorical. By extension, the gesture evokes the categorical character of an assertion, a fact or a principle (Calbris 2003). Thus, regardless of the configuration, the lowering of the edges of rigid, vertically held hands represents the action of slicing, separating, stopping and, hence, the act of deciding. Let us now look at the gesture variants found to express the notions of decision and categorical character in Sample 1. 2.4.2.1â•… Decisionâ•… [If.d]. Rapidly lowering the edge of the Rigid Hand* relates back to ‘slicing’, to deciding: “As for example they have done it concerning Iraq *through a decision of the United Nations.” (Example 41). The gesture alone is able to express decision making regarding a measure, for example: “So there is *one measure that is a measure of incitement to work, strong, and I believe innovative” (Example 45). [T.d]. Another gesture variant of decision making is rapidly lowering the edge of the hand in the Right Angle configuration*: “*who decides to propose a project to make a law to ratify it” (Example 62). Note that the law project results in a decree and is thus brought to an end. [∏.d]. Rapidly lowering the edges of both Rigid Hands in the Frame configuration* represents the idea expressed by ‘decide’ in the next example: “I could *not even decide if there was any truth in the matter” (Example 54). Note the second underlying idea of delimitation (of defining the matter) included in the unconscious choice of both hands (see Figure 37).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
I could not even decide Figure 37.╇ Decision (Calbris 2003d: 145)
On this point, in the clearest way Figure 38.╇ Categorical character (Calbris 2003d:╛145)
2.4.2.2â•… Categorical characterâ•… [If.d].â•… Lowering the edge of the Rigid Hand represents the decisive aspect of judgement: “One has to look for methods | [that are] quite supple, *not be ideological (Example 40). – Therefore Iraq must respect the obligations which are its own in front of the Security Council. [raised cleaver] On this point, we conceive of things in the way [which chops/that is] the clearest. (Example 49) (see Figure 38). [T.d].â•… Lowering the edge of the hand in the Right Angle configuration translates the decisive aspect of intention: “We, we want to be *volunteers in the struggle for employment” (Example 61). Note that the choice of the frontal plane translates the corollary idea of wanting to stop the increase in unemployment. [∏.d].â•… Lowering the edges of the two rigid hands in the Frame configuration represent determination: “slowly *but in a determined way” (Example 60). Note that the idea of de-termination connects with that of de-limitation, which is probably why both hands are used.
Chapter 5.╇ Systematic analysis to identify gestural signs 
The above observations introduced by “Note …” indicate that gesture variants tend not to be randomly but semantically differentiated. The lowering of the edge of the hand represents, via the act of slicing, the common notion of decision, whereas the configuration adopted by the hand doing the slicing represents a second notion that complements the first. Positioning the hand in the frontal plane adds the notion of stopping. The use of both hands facing each other adds the notion of delimitation. We are dealing with gestures, in reality polysigns, in which each one of the relevant physical features (the downward movement of the edge of the hand, the hand configuration) represents one of the elements of the thought expressed. By making successive comparisons and seeking to match what is common on the physical level with what is common on the semantic level, one establishes a range of analogical links and, in conclusion, realizes that the gesture is a composite unit and a polysign. By lowering the edge of the hand, the three gestures express a common notion, but each configuration seems to be able to express a complementary second notion: that of cutting with [If.d], of stopping with [T.d], of delimitation with [∏.d]. Which is the physical feature that represents the respective second notion? All we have to do is compare the gesture variants of the second notion – either cutting or stopping or delimitation – to find the analogical link underlying the second gestural sign. The systematic analysis of gestures thus comprises several phases of extracting and comparing increasingly more gesture data in order to isolate physical and semantic elements which consistently correlate. These successive phases progressively widen the scope of the analysis to include additional semantic fields associated with physical elements found to be common to gestures in the corpus. This process enables one to verify the analogical relation that attaches a particular physical feature of a gesture to a particular meaning.
2.5â•… Validate the analogical link In Chapter 1 it was stated that the relevant feature which supports the analogical link is the physical element that is common to the gesture variants used to express the same notion. The example given was the symmetrical or repeated transverse movement of the hand or the head ‘sweeping the horizon’ to analogically express the notion of totality. It is crucial to understand that the physical feature which supports the analogical link may simply be a gestural component (transverse movement to express totality) or a combination of physical elements present in one or more gestural components which act together to establish an analogical link (downward movement of the edge of the hand to express categorical or decisive character). Figure 39 shows the principle behind the procedure for validating a suspected analogical link by comparing the gesture variants of a notion. One always has to research the correlation between what is physically common and what is semantically common
 Elements of meaning in gesture
in order to find the physico-semantic link that establishes the specific gestural sign expressed by the gesture. The common physical feature should express the common meaning inferred from the diverse contexts, and indicate the analogical constituent of the gestural sign that is common to a given range of gestures. For instance, the physical feature A common to gestures 1, 2, and 3 expresses the common notion X, while the physical feature D common to gestures 3, 4, and 5 expresses the common notion Y. By analogy, let us call the three gestures in Sample 1 gestures 1, 2, and 3. All three express ‘a categorical or decisive character’, notion X. However, gesture 3 expresses a second notion, Y, that correlates with a physical feature which is to be found by comparing the gestures variants of notion Y. One repeats the same process to verify any further suspected analogical links between physical elements of the gesture and other notions it apparently expresses. It is by thus comparing, filtering out and cross-referencing physical and semantic aspects of the data in one’s corpus that one validates an analogical link which one suspects is activated in a given context of use. Notions:
X
Y
Links:
A
D
Physical features: of gestures:
Ab 1
Ac
AD
2
3
Gesture variants of X expressed by A in 1, 2, and 3
De
Df
4
5
Gesture variants of Y expressed by D in 3, 4, and 5
Figure 39.╇ Researching the analogical link between gestures and notions
One applies the same method to discover the analogical links supporting the gestural signs in a polysemous gesture. One compares the range of notions it expresses in examples extracted from the corpus with the range of gesture variants found to express each of those notions. Only by taking this exhaustive systematic approach can one discover the natural link uniting a particular physical feature with a specific meaning, and verify the strength of the link which one finds. In this chapter it has been shown how to discover the range of analogical links established between the physical and the semantic levels of gestures. The method used also reveals that analogical links may recur in combination with each other within one gesture and brings to light the complex interplay of symbolic relations established between gestures and notions. This process of discovery will be the subject of the next three chapters in Part III.
part iii
The symbolic relations between gestures and notions
In Part III we are going to consider the relations between gestures and notions and to study the diversity of these physico-semantic relations by adopting, firstly, the physical viewpoint (Chapter 6. Different gestures represent one notion), and then the semantic viewpoint (Chapter 7. One gesture represents different notions). Given the diversity of gestural signs that are found to refer to one notion (Chapter 6) or obtained from one gesture (Chapter 7), the objective is always to identify the analogical link that explains each of these signs (Chapter 8).
chapter 6
Different gestures represent one notion Variation A given notion or concept may be expressed gesturally in several different ways. These are called the gesture variants of a given notion. The topic of ‘time’ has been selected to illustrate how the same notion can be expressed by different gestures. Indeed, there are many different ways in which time is referred to. One can talk of the placement of an event in time, for example, in relation to the present or a given moment. One can also refer to the length of periods of time, in which space-time may be perceived as a straight or cyclic path, a distance covered. As we shall see, such temporal references can be created spatially by gestural expressions that vary according to how the speaker is conceptualizing time. Different body parts, different types of movement, or different planes in which a movement is performed, may sometimes be substituted for one another to express a different shade of meaning. Underlying all these physical modulations, it is posited that there is a precise system for spatially representing time in western culture. This will be demonstrated using examples from the corpora. The topic of time also has the advantage that several different authors have collected gestural expressions of time in several different languages and cultures. By comparing these, we shall be able to see how similar or different are the ways in which time is conceptualized in different languages and cultures (Gesture variants of time). It will be demonstrated how the comparison of gesture variants enables one to distinguish those that express slight semantic variations of the same notion (semantic variants) from those that just express the same notion with varying degrees of strength (stylistic variants). The latter may reinforce the expression of the same notion when performed simultaneously (cumulative variants). Semantic variants are obtained from the corpora by studying examples with the same priority component and substituting their secondary gestural components, for example, the body part or the form of movement (Gesture variants obtained by substituting a gestural component). A closer inquiry into semantic variants reveals how one can determine the semantic contribution of a secondary gestural component. We shall see how it adds nuance to the meaning conveyed by the priority component (The semantic contribution of the substitute).
Elements of meaning in gesture
Furthermore, we shall see how the possibility of modifying a secondary gestural component to optimise semantic precision allows speakers to choose a gesture variant that is suited to a given situation (The choice of variant). To conclude the chapter, it is shown how one can deduce the range of semantic features that constitute a given notion by investigating the gesture variants that express it (Isolating the semantic features of a notion via its gesture variants).
1.â•… Gesture variants of time Time is an abstract notion which is referred to verbally in spatial expressions, for example, as when we talk about an event in the future being “far off ” or when we talk about a “long period of time” or a “short period of time”, and so forth. This spatialization of time is also manifested in associated gestural expressions. The examples of such gestures that we shall examine have either been gathered from Â�everyday-life Â�situations or extracted from filmed interviews with French native speakers. An explanatory synthesis is proposed. This is based on a 20-minute audio-visual document1 that condenses a previously published article (Calbris 1985a), supplemented by more recently televised examples given in the video clips. The presentation comprises two main sections: 1. Localization of an event –â•fi –â•fi
either with respect to the present moment, in order to express the notions of �present, past, and future; or with respect to a given moment specified by the speaker, in order to express the notions of anteriority and posteriority.
2. Duration expressed –â•fi –â•fi
either as a straight line to measure a time interval, represented by a transverse movement or by a gap between the hands or the thumb and index finger; or as a curved line to evoke cyclic and evolving phenomena, represented by a vertical circle repeated on itself or by loops. These gestures may also evoke the notion of repetition: once, many times, habitual repetition, or perpetuity.
.â•… VHS video cassette “L’expression gestuelle du temps”, produced within the framework of the project “Cognisciences-Paris Sud 92” and available from LIMSI-CNRS.
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
1.1â•… Localization 1.1.1â•… Localization with respect to the present moment Imagine you are walking. The step you have just taken is situated right behind you. More distant points in time are located even further away behind you. And what you are going to do, in principle, is in front of you. How can a speaker, while looking at his interlocutor, designate a point just behind himself and refer back to the recent past? By moving the thumb or turning the head backwards over the shoulder (see Figure 40.1):
99 Mais si, il est là, [thumb backwards over the shoulder] je l’ai vu, il y a cinq Â�minutes
But yes [contradicting the interlocutor], he is there, [thumb backwards over the shoulder] I saw him, five minutes ago 100 [head turned backwards over the shoulder] L’an dernier à pareille époque, il faisait un temps de cochon [head turned backwards over the shoulder] Last year at this time, the weather was dreadful And to evoke the distant past situated further away behind oneself? The head is no longer turned over the shoulder, but the head and hand are raised and moved backwards (see Figure 40.2).
Thumb and/or head turned over the shoulder
Hand and/or head raised high and backwards
1. Recent past
2. Distant past
Figure 40.╇ Recent and distant past (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›140)
Elements of meaning in gesture
101 Pouh [raised hand, palm facing backwards] c’↜st vieux comme Hérode. – Â�Naturellement, le XIXe siècle commence bien plus tôt, il commence [raised hand, palm facing backwards] vers 1815, et [repeated a second time] il Â�commence même si on veut à la Révolution française (video 20) Pouh [raised hand, palm facing backwards] that’s as old as the hills. – Of course, the 19th century begins much earlier, it begins [raised hand, palm facing backwards] towards 1815, and [repeated a second time] it even begins if you like at the French Revolution 102 Elle y a pas été [head raised backwards] depuis des années She hasn’t been there [head raised backwards] for years Let us compare the past and future localized behind and in front respectively, using the head or the hand:
1.1.1.1â•… Past and Future expressed by a head movement in opposite directions: 103 C’était [head turned backwards over the shoulder] il y a quinze jours That was [head turned backwards over the shoulder] two weeks ago 104 On a le temps, [forward head movement] c’est pour dans 15 jours We’ve got time, [forward head movement] it’s for in two weeks time
1.1.1.2â•… Past and Future expressed by a hand movement in opposite directions: 105 Vous vous souvenez de l’accident, [thumb moves backwards over the shoulder] il y a deux semaines ? You remember the accident, [thumb moves backwards over the shoulder] two weeks ago? 106 On arrivera à trois millions [forward hand movement in the shape of an arc] d’ici peu We’ll get to three million [forward hand movement in the shape of an arc] in a little while In contrast to the future and to the past, therefore neither in front nor behind, the present is situated on the vertical axis of the speaker’s body indicated by a downward movement: 107 Les moyens n’↜ont jamais excédé [lowered Level Hands (Appendix A, 5.)] pour l’instant, 30.000 Francs The [financial] means have never exceeded [lowered Level Hands] for the Â�moment, 30.000 Francs 108 Les droits de succession [Frame configuration (Appendix A, 9.)] seront payés en 10 ans, [lowered] et non pas tout de suite The inheritance tax [Frame configuration] will be paid over 10 years, [lowered] and not immediately
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
109 [index finger pointing downwards] J’ai dit tout de suite [index finger pointing downwards] I said immediately 110 [head lowered] Maintenant [head lowered] Now The relevant physical feature of these gestures is to be found neither in the configuration of the hands (oriented horizontally or vertically), nor in the body part used (hand, index finger, head, or gaze). It is in the movement downwards. This is confirmed in the following example in which a politician refers to the present twice by lowering his hands. In the first instance, the hand configuration is open and in the second it is closed (see Figure 41). 111 [first movement downwards, palms facing each other (see Figure 41.1)] Je prends le pari aujourd’↜hui, et je suis prêt à revenir dans un an, [second movement downwards, fingertips touching (see Figure 41.2)] je prends le pari aujourd’↜hui [first movement downwards, palms facing each other] I take up the challenge today, and I am ready to come back in a year, [second movement downwards, fingertips touching] I take up the challenge today
beginning
end 1. First movement downwards
beginning
end 2. Second movement downwards
Figure 41.╇ The present: “the challenge today”
In sum, the notions of present, past, and future are respectively reduced to: Hic et nunc (here and now); what we have gone through; and what we are going towards.2
.â•… Here cognitive linguists will recognize the Moving Ego model, one of the Ego-based models in Evans’ (2004) taxonomy of cognitive models of time.
Elements of meaning in gesture
1.1.2â•… Localization with respect to a given moment When one wants to express the notions of ‘before’ (anteriority) or ‘after’ (posteriority), one’s reference point is no longer the present moment situated on the vertical axis of the body. It is any moment in time that one specifies, and this is localized on the vertical axis of the hand held in front of the body. The hand thus establishes a moment of reference used to localize events that occurred ‘beforehand’ or are ‘forthcoming’. An anterior moment is situated ‘in the past’ by moving the hand backwards and towards oneself (Example 112), and a posterior moment is situated ‘in the future’ by moving the hand forwards and away from oneself (Example 113): 112 [backward arc] Je te l’↜avais dit l’année d’avant. – Ce que je disais [backward arc] précédemment (video 21) [backward arc] I had told you that the year before. – What I was saying [backward arc] previously 113 [forward arc] Trois jours après, il était là. – On parlait encore un latin très très modifié [hand moves forwards] qui allait devenir, ce que nous parlons aujourd’hui (video 22) [forward arc] Three days later, he was there. – One still spoke a very very modified Latin [hand moves forwards] which was going to become, what we speak today In whichever way we express going backwards and forwards in time, we always localize events with respect to a given moment according to our experience and our concrete image of walking. But we also dispose of another possibility, the direction of writing. When writing in French or English, what you have written is to the left of your hand, and what you will write will be to the right. There is a transfer of axes on which events may be situated, namely, a transfer from the sagittal axis directed from back to front to the transverse axis directed from left to right. Again, on the transverse axis, anteriority and posteriority are localized by moving either the hand(s) (Examples 114, 115) or the head (Examples 116, 117) to the left and right respectively: 114 [hands displaced to the left] Il y avait eu l’année dernière, une tentative [hands displaced to the left] There was last year, an attempt3 115 Une rétrospective qui va nous entraîner [right hand displaced to the right] dans deux semaines [left hand displaced to the left] à l’avant-guerre [then to the right] et puis après à nouveau aux années 60
.â•… English word order: ‘There was an attempt last year’.
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
A retrospective which is going to take us [right hand displaced to the right] in two weeks [left hand displaced to the left] to the pre-war period [then to the right] and then afterwards once again to the 60s4 J’ai [hands in Frame configuration turned to the left] j’ai vécu l’avant [then to the right] et l’après (video 23) I [hands in Frame configuration turned to the left] I experienced [the period] before [then to the right] and after 116 [head turned to the left] Avant [then to the right] ou après les élections? [head turned to the left] Before [then to the right] or after the elections? 117 [head turned to the left] avant c’était tout mal [then recentered] et maintenant ça va être tout bien (video 24) [head turned to the left] before it was all bad [then recentered] and now it’s going to be all fine Figure 42 illustrates that, due to the symmetry of the body, the transverse axis seems to impose itself as soon as one has to express the opposition between anteriority and posteriority, localized respectively on the left and on the right, once again by moving the head or the hand.
Figure 42.╇ Anteriority & Posteriority opposed on the transverse axis (Zaü in Calbris & Â�Montredon 1986:↜143)
.â•… Note that the speaker resorts to using two hands in order to situate temporal events perfectly on the transverse axis. Respecting the principle of the actual moment conceived as being on the vertical axis of the body, he situates the future on his right (right hand displaced to the right, in two weeks) and the past on his left (the distant past of the pre-war period is situated further to the left than the more recent past of the 1960s).
Elements of meaning in gesture
In summary, analyses of the corpora show that the gestural representation of localized moments in time proves to be a complex and coherent system in itself.5 Figure 43, read from left to right, presents an overview of how bodily reference points are used to differentiate and localize events in time in this system. Sagittal axis Future
Sagittal axis
In front of the body
Posteriority
In front of the hand
Left Anteriority Anteriority Present
Vertical axis of the body
Vertical axis of the hand
Right Transverse axis Posteriority
Behind the hand Vertical axis of the body
recent
distant Past
Behind the body
1. Recent vs. Distant past
2. Posteriority vs. Anteriority
The curved �arrow represents the transfer of temporal reference from the sagittal to the transverse axis for �expressing anteriority and posteriority
Figure 43.╇ Temporal localization differentiated by bodily reference points
Figure 43.1 shows the first physico-semantic distinction observed in the corpora and which spatially opposes the recent past (conceived as being just behind oneself) to the distant past (situated far behind oneself). It is posited that this distinction is based on the bodily experience of throwing something towards a target situated close by (flat trajectory) or far away (the height of the curved trajectory corresponding to the distance of the target). One thus has an experiential foundation for a system that provides a contrast between the future (in front of the body) and the past (behind the body), and hence the present moment is situated on the vertical axis of the body. Figure 43.2 shows the contrast in the system between posteriority (in front of the hand) and anteriority (behind the hand, in front of the body): a given moment other than
.â•… Indeed, “gesture, and other nonverbal means of expression, can serve as independent sources of evidence of the psychological reality of conceptual metaphors” (Cienki 1998:â•›190).
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
the present is specified by the speaker and situated on the vertical axis of the hand, in front of the body. It is posited that there is a transfer of spatial reference from the vertical axis of the body (the present moment) to the vertical axis of the hand (a given moment): the given moment is regarded as being situated outside one’s body, which is used as the fundamental spatial reference for ‘here and now’. Hence anteriority and posteriority are expressed using a reference point situated under the hand, on the sagittal axis. Moreover, these two notions may also be expressed by localizing points on the transverse axis. It is posited that this results from a transfer between two axes of progression: from the sagittal axis of walking (forwards) to the transverse axis of writing (from left to right in western culture). Given the underlying reference to the body’s axis of symmetry, this transfer to the transverse axis offers above all an added physical advantage: it facilitates the gestural expression of the semantic opposition between posteriority and anteriority when both notions are formulated and expressed in the same utterance. Whether the movement that situates events takes place on the sagittal or on the transverse axis, anteriority and posteriority are always expressed using a spatial reference situated on the vertical axis of the hand; the choice of axis depends on the situation.
1.2â•… Duration Now that the localization of an event has been treated, we come to the second major topic, the gestural expression of the duration of time. Here we shall see how gesture may express two different conceptualizations of duration, firstly as a distance that one measures and then as a curved or circular path that one traces with the hand(s).
1.2.1â•… The measurement of time The duration of time is frequently likened to a distance that one covers on an axis of progession: in front of oneself: 118 Il reste très vivant [hands in the Frame configuration move forwards] et Â�continuera d’exister He remains very much alive [hands in the Frame configuration move Â�forwards] and will continue to exist (An actress is talking about the death of a film Â�director) most often from left to right: 119 La durée [transverse curved movement of the right hand] du passage de l’un à l’autre [extended to the right] est de cinq, six mois. The duration [transverse curved movement of the right hand] of the passage from the one to the other [extended to the right] is five, six months. [hands in the Frame configuration quickly displaced to the right] Passons Â�brutalement à 95 (1995)
Elements of meaning in gesture
[hands in the Frame configuration quickly displaced to the right displaced to the right] Let us move on brutally to 95 (1995) [left hand swept to the right] Cette situation va se prolonger au XIXe siècle et au XXe siècle [left hand swept to the right] This situation is going to be prolonged into the 19th century and into the 20th century The length of time may be delimited by the two palms held in the sagittal plane facing each other in the Frame configuration: 120 Ce n’↜est pas une question de travail [gap between hands in the Frame configuration] en tant d’heures It’s not a question of working [gap between hands in the Frame configuration] for a number of hours [Fingertips on the table, hands facing each other designate] Ces métiers là peuvent parfaitement être appris [gap between hands is shortened] en deux ans [then widened] et pas en douze (video 25) [Fingertips on the table, hands facing each other designate] Those occupations can be perfectly learned [gap between hands is shortened] in two years [then widened] and not in twelve or by two fingers, the thumb and the index finger held apart, if it concerns a brief period of time: 121 Je sais ce que le pilote a pu me raconter [gap between the thumb and index finger in Narrow Gap configuration (Appendix A, 14.)] en quarante secondes I know what the pilot was able to tell me [gap between the thumb and index finger in Narrow Gap configuration] in forty seconds Another example of the gestural expression of duration is when a temporal limit is established as a spatial limit in front of oneself on the sagittal axis, in the direction of walking: 122 Le Français [hand folded in the Right Angle configuration (Appendix A, 4.), with the backs of the fingers forming a frontal panel that moves forwards 10â•›cm] voit à court terme The French person [hand folded in the Right Angle configuration, with the backs of the fingers forming a frontal panel that moves forwards 10â•›cm] sees in the short term La commission d’évaluation du RMI, [the backs of the fingers form a frontal panel that moves forwards] elle a été créée pour trois ans, [much further] elle a pas été créée pour l’éternité, et [repeated a second time] au terme de ces trois ans, son rapport est public. The evaluation committee of the RMI, [the backs of the fingers form a frontal panel that moves forwards] it was created for three years, [much
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
further] it was not created for eternity, and [repeated a second time] at the end of these three years, its report is public. or on the transverse axis, in the direction of writing, to the right: 123 C’est un peu le [Rigid hand (Appendix A, 11.) displaced to the right] le gardien du long terme (video 26) It’s a little bit like the [Rigid hand displaced to the right] the custodian of the long term [interests]
1.2.2â•… The course of time Let us now look at how notions of time are expressed by gestural paths that follow a curved line. One is tempted to suppose that it is because the sun rises in the east, sets in the west, and reappears in the east at dawn that the repetition of events, the cycle of the seasons, and the course of time are represented by a circular movement: a vertical circle [O], or vertical loops that progress forwards in front of the body [OOO], or a repeated circle performed by two interlocking hands turning around each another [O2]. All these circular movements are always clockwise in direction (see Figure 44): 124 [OOO] Non non non [OOO] étape par étape; – Les 2 héros [OOO] mènent leur vie, grandissent. – Et je ne doute pas que [OOO] dans les années qui viennent – Cette symétrie affecterait les tissus [OOO] qui se développent le plus précocement, c’est-à-dire l’ectoderme. – Il faut [OOO] continuer d’améliorer notre compétitivité. – [OOO] Puis j’ai continué (video 27) No no no [OOO] step by step; – The 2 heroes [OOO] lead their lives, grow up. – And I have no doubt that [OOO] in the years to come – This symmetry would affect the tissues [OOO] that develop the most precociously, that is to say the ectoderm. – It is necessary [OOO] to continue to improve our competitiveness. – [OOO] Then I continued 125 [O2] [O2] Il a été transformé en poste d’agrégé répétiteur.6 – [O2] Pour bien faire, il faudrait une rotation à la Direction. – Comment voulez-vous! [O2] Ca change tous les ans! – donc [O] apporter tout un tas de livres nouveaux, [O2] qui se renouvellent un peu (video 28) [O2] It has been transformed into the position of a nationally qualified tutor. – [O2] In order to do well, it would require a rotation at management level – How if you please! [O2] That changes every year! – so [O] to bring a whole heap of new books, [O2] that replace old ones a little
.â•… In the French education system, the agrégation is a national competitive exam that qualifies university graduates to teach in higher education.
Elements of meaning in gesture
In the four examples in 125, one observes a modification of the gestural sign on the physical level as well as on the semantic level. The use of both hands [O2] has the idea of change as a corollary: replacement during the course of time is represented by the hands turning around each other, following and replacing each other in the same vertical circle repeated on itself.
[O]
[OOO]
[O2]
Figure 44.╇ Coding gestural expressions of the course of time
1.2.2.1â•… Repetition.â•… A course of time that returns to a reference point implies the notion of repetition. Sketching a vertical circle is a way of returning to the starting point and evoking the notion of ‘a second time’, but a curved movement in the opposite direction introduces an important shade of meaning. An arc backwards (Example 126) implies a return to the starting point (in the past), back to zero, whereas an arc forwards (Example 127) implies starting anew (in the future): 126 C’est par ce biais là [arc backwards] que je voulais reprendre la Â�question précédente. – Une norme, un gabarit, un modèle et … [arc backwards] On arrête ? (video 29) It’s from that angle [arc backwards] that I wanted to reconsider the preceding question. – A standard, a gauge, a model and… [arc backwards] One stops? (gesturally implied meaning: ‘one recommences everything?’) 127 [arc forwards] Pour que cela soit repris par la suite. – A quarante ans, [arc forwards] elle a recommencé de travailler. – C’est [arc forwards] retraduire (video 30) [arc forwards] In order for that to be resumed later on. – At the age of forty, [arc forwards] she recommenced work. – That’s [arc forwards] to retranslate A vertical circle forwards may or may not be repeated, which allows one to represent different types of repetition: One more time [O] 128 Même si [O] on pense que le produit sera nécessairement révisable Even if [O] we think that the product will need revision Several times [OOO] 129 En tant qu’usagers ils seraient prêts à descendre dans la rue, et d’ailleurs [OOO] régulièrement ils le font. – Vous avez parlé de documents à remplir sur les tâches [OOO] que vous ferez, que vous feriez journellement (video 31)
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
As users they will be prepared to take to the streets, and besides [OOO] regularly7 they do it. – You have talked about documents to be filled in concerning the tasks [OOO] that you will do, that you would be doing every day Indefinitely [O2] 130 [O2] C’est une activité constamment autorégulée. – [O2] Ca peut continuer indéfiniment. – [O2] Comme si y a une énergie comme ça qui continuait, qui continuait, qui continuait (video 32) [O2] It’s an activity [that is] constantly self-regulated. – [O2] That can continue indefinitely. – [O2] As if there is an energy like that, that continued, that continued, that continued One observes that the notion of perpetuity is expressed by both hands performing an interlocking movement sequence [O2] that conveys the notion of cogwheels interlocking.
1.2.2.2â•… Regressive unfolding.â•… With regard to the course of time, we have so far examined examples of unfolding progressively forwards, but going back in time supposes regressive unfolding, turning back the clock (coded here by an arrow pointing backwards, to the left ←): 131 [←OOO] Alors là moi, je remonte à trois, trois interventions (video 33) [←OOO] Now then me, I go back to three, three speeches Les associations de légitime défense [←OOO] sont nées de cet instinct de vengeance privée Legitimate defence organizations [←OOO] are born out of this instinct for personal vengeance [←O] Constamment il renaît à l’intérieur de l’église un courant de foi [←O] Constantly there is reborn within the Church a current of faith8 Mais euh ça, [←O2] ça ça ne peut jamais être à l’origine euh du travail de l’entreprise, quoi, c’est simplement une conclusion (video 34) But er that, [←O2] that that can never be at the origin er of the work of the company, eh, it’s simply a conclusion Thus the notions of starting again, origin, or distant anteriority are represented by a vertical loop or loops directed backwards.
.â•… English word order: ‘they do it regularly’. .â•… English word order: ‘there is a constant rebirth of faith within the Church’.
Elements of meaning in gesture
Let us recall the contrast made between straight-line and curved gestures in Chapter 4 (Movement: gestures in space). It will allow us to see the different ways in which a notion such as ‘continuity’ may be expressed. Let us reconsider some of the above examples: 118 Il reste très vivant et [hands in the Frame configuration move forwards] et continuera d’exister He remains very much alive and [hands in the Frame configuration move forwards] and will continue to exist 124 Il faut [OOO] continuer d’améliorer notre compétitivité. – [OOO] Puis j’ai continué (video 27) It is necessary [OOO] to continue to improve our competitiveness. – [OOO] Then I continued 130 [O2] Ca peut continuer indéfiniment. – [O2 performed 3 times] qui continuait, qui continuait, qui continuait (video 32) [O2] That can continue indefinitely. – [O2 performed 3 times] that continued, that continued, that continued In Example 119 we observe that the idea of continuity without change is represented by a straight line; in Example 124 the idea of continuity with change is represented by a curved line by loops [OOO] because it concerns improvement, and in Example 130 by the interlocking circles of the two hands [O2] because it is infinite. These examples demonstrate, once again, that a gesture is not a word illustrator but Â�represents an underlying idea that is formulated and expressed during the course of an utterance. The same contrasts in gestural form will also create the distinction between the notions of a segmented succession and an alternating succession. Serial publishing is represented by the edge of the hand which slices as it moves sideways, whereas the rotation of teams that work alternating shifts is represented by the two hands turning around each other (Example 125). Let us summarize this study of how the notion of duration may be expressed gesturally. When it is a matter of measuring, dividing up or prolonging time, one uses a linear form of expression: time is treated as if it extends like a line through space. Thus the span of time to be measured is represented either as the whole distance covered from A to Z by the hand moving forwards or to the right, or as the empty distance between the two hands in Frame configuration in the case of a long time interval, and between two fingers, the thumb and the index finger in Narrow Gap configuration, in the case of a brief period. Like a spatial limit, a temporal limit is indicated by a transverse barrier positioned at a certain distance in front of oneself (Calbris 1985a:â•›64). Moreover, the French speaker employs circles to express the passage of time: its course, the evolution of things, the unfolding of events, the cycle of the seasons,
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
recurring events, alternating succession through rotation, and finally, a chain of events ad sempiternam. Depending on the shade of meaning to be expressed, the vertical circles are directed forwards in clockwise loops using one hand or interlocked in a repeated clockwise circle using both hands. This conveys the idea of a progressive unwinding. The desire for a new beginning and the search for an origin lead one to retrace the course of time: regressive rewinding is then represented by one or several vertical, anticlockwise loops directed backwards (Calbris 1985a:â•›71). We have just studied a range of different gestures employed to situate events in time and to represent the duration of time. Their diversity enabled differentiations to be made between recent and distant past, between posteriority and anteriority, between continuity with and without change. The examples studied show how various shades of meaning, all related to the same underlying notion, can be expressed by various kinds of modifications that will now be summarized. Firstly, a change of spatial reference differentiates ways of referring to the past: a point right behind oneself representing the recent past contrasts with a point further behind oneself representing for the distant past (Figure 43.1); and whereas the vertical axis of the body represents the present behind which both the recent and the distant past are localized, the vertical axis of the hand represents a given moment behind which anteriority is localized (Figure 43.2). Secondly, while retaining the vertical axis of the hand as the spatial reference for a given moment, one can change the axis of progression from the sagittal to the transverse axis to symmetrically oppose anteriority (left) to posteriority (right) using a body part of one’s choice: either the head or the hand can signify this opposition (Figure 42). Thirdly, the form of the movement can distinguish two types of continuity: a straight line is used to represent a simple continuation with no change, and a curved line in the form of loops is used to represent a cyclic phenomenon. Let us recall that if the latter does not evolve further and repeats itself in a similar manner, i.e. if the repetition does not lead to progression, stagnation in the repetition is represented by a never-ending circle traced by the two hands turning perpetually around each other. The gesture variants we have examined are all linked to physical changes that systematically modify the meaning of a gesture: a change of spatial reference in relation to the body, of body part performing the gesture, or of movement form will systematically create semantic distinctions. One final detail, the size of the body part used to ‘measure’ space-time is proportional to the distance to be represented: one uses the hand for the distant past (long ago) but the thumb for the recent past (a short time ago). Similarly, one uses both hands to delimit a large space of time but only two fingers, the thumb and index finger, to signify a brief period. Given the correlation between the length of the space-time signified and the size of the body part used to signify it, these examples display the phenomenon of isomorphism (see Chapter 1).
Elements of meaning in gesture
1.3â•… Gestural expression of time in different cultures In order to situate themselves in time, the French gesturally reproduce the same line that progresses along an axis oriented from back to front or from left to right, regardless of whether they are hearing or deaf.9 This means that they share one same mental, spatial representation of time, and that the gestural expression of hearing speakers is not just a simple illustration of their verbal, and equally spatial, expression of time. The three types of expression – uniquely verbal (speech), verbo-gestural (multimodal discourse) and uniquely gestural (sign language) – are equivalent and display the same spatial, and cultural, representation of time. This triple parallelism suggests, thus, that primary sign languages, gestural expression in speakers, and spoken language, are all drawing upon the same mode of meaning representation which is yet is [sic] separate from and, to a degree, at least, independent of any particular system of symbolic representation. (Kendon 1993:â•›4)
Kendon goes on to draw attention to the fact that several different European languages, nevertheless, all make use of the same spatial conceptual model of time. The fact that they (the sign languages) directionalize past-future and (for British Sign Language, in any case) earlier-later in ways similar to gesturing speakers in contemporary Paris, Coperchia (Italy), and Philadelphia, or nineteenth century Naples, suggests that we may be dealing with a spatialization of time that is independent of particular languages. The model of time that is implied by the spatial expressions for time that may be found in many spoken languages – often in quite unrelated ones – seems to reflect a similar view: that the events that are to come are ahead of us, those that have happened are behind. (Kendon 1993: 9)
However, there are other cultures which model time differently. For example, Klein (1987) studied conceptions of time among the Toba, a people living in a region that straddles Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia, and reported that they conceive the future as being behind and the past as being in front of them. Kendon also refers to another Bolivian culture in which time is modelled in this way: Miracle and Yapita (1981) report that for the Aymara of Bolivia past events, being known, are events that can be seen, and they are thus spoken of as if in front of the speaker. Future events, on the other hand, are not known, and, accordingly, are regarded as being unperceivable and are referred to as if behind the speaker. (Kendon 1993:â•›10)
.â•… Cf. Gestural expressions of time collected from hearing speakers presented by Calbris and from deaf signers presented by Cuxac in a video document produced within the framework of the project “Cognisciences-Paris Sud 92”.
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
The Aymara situate themselves on a time line in a static way, explain Núñez & Sweetser (2006). They have a “Static Ego Reference Point” temporal model, contrary to a good number of other cultures that have the same dynamic model in common, according to which the subject mentally displaces himself on a time line, perceiving the past as something he has lived, travelled across, and the future as a project, a goal towards which he is advancing. Lastly, Australian Aboriginal cultures, whether the Warlpiri or the Ngaatjatjarra studied respectively by Kendon (1988) and Montredon (1990),10 have a gestural expression of time that seems to underline the continuity between past, present and future. Kendon explains that among the Warlpiri (as among other peoples of the North Central Desert interior) “traditionally, there is no notion of a unidirectional progression and recession of events, hence there is no conception of the future as something ‘coming’ that will be unlike the past” (1993:â•›11). Their conception of time may be reflected in their sign language which is used for ritual reasons: For [the Warlpiri], the main contrast is between present and non-present. Non-present events may be regarded as being spatially displaced from the speaker but this is in a space that has a specific geographical character, in which they are linked to specific places in the landscape. (Kendon 1993:â•›10)
They seem to have no abstract spatial conception of time. Montredon (2001) also compares the gestural expression of time in three very different cultures: the French (Calbris 1985a), the Mofu-Gudur in the Cameroon (Sorin-Barreteau 1996) and the Ngaatjatjarra in Australia. They only had one expression in common: referring to the present (now, today), the speaker designates the ground at his feet. For man, here and now cannot be dissociated: The word “here” applied to my body does not refer to a determinate position in relation to other positions or to external co-ordinates, but the laying down of the first co-ordinates, the anchoring of the active body in an object, the situation of (Merleau-Ponty 1945:â•›117)11 the body in face of its tasks.
To conclude, I cite Montredon (2001), who observed that the spatial metaphor and the different possibilities of representation are maintained on the same axes in the three
.â•… Ellis & Montredon (1990) “Ngaatjatjarra gestures related to time and space” (U-Matic video cassette, 30â•›mins.). The University of Queensland, Institute for Aboriginal Development, Alice Springs. .â•… “Le mot “ici” appliqué à mon corps ne désigne pas une position déterminée par rapport à d’autres positions ou par rapport à des coordonnées extérieures, mais l’installation des premières coordonnées, l’ancrage du corps actif dans un objet, la situation du corps en face de ses tâches.” (Merleau-Ponty 1945:â•›117). Translation Colin Smith (1962:â•›100).
Elements of meaning in gesture
cultures he studied: “The gestural expression of time demonstrates well that if there were a need for both the unity and the diversity of the human race at the same time, it would take into account our first cognitive efforts, efforts in which our whole body was implied.”12 The above discussion of gestures referring to time indicates the wide variety of ways in which people across cultures conceive of time. The study of how the French use gestural expressions to spatialize their concepts of time took gesture variants of the localization and the duration of temporal events as the point of departure. We thus saw how one notion may be expressed by several different gestures. In other words, we took the ideational analytic perspective introduced in Chapter 1 (Figure 7). We shall now examine the French gesture variants of given notions from a physical analytic perspective by considering the semantic outcome of substituting their gestural components for one another. This will enable us to make a distinction between semantic and stylistic gesture variants.
2.â•… Gesture variants obtained by substituting a gestural component Chapter 4 offered a classification of referential gestures according to the priority of their physical components. This is now built upon to examine the possibilities and the semantic effects of substituting their relevant secondary physical component(s). Gestural components are said to be substitutable when, for example, two hands can be replaced by one hand in order to represent something, or the hand or the fingers can be replaced by the head if it is a matter of indicating a direction. Thus we have the choice between different gesture variants to represent or indicate something, and each one may produce a different shade of meaning due to a change of relevant secondary physical component, here the body part. Such gesture variants are called semantic variants. One may obtain them from a corpus by changing any relevant secondary gestural component within a sample of gesture variants and by determining the corresponding range of contextual meanings. Different body parts may be substitutable, or different types of movement, or different planes in which a movement is performed. Here only the substitution of body parts and types of movement will be discussed. Not all the gesture variants of a given notion may present semantic variation; those with exactly the same meaning can be employed just to amplify or attenuate the degree of expressivity. For example, a manual gesture or a head gesture which contains one identical gestural sign can be cumulated in a kinesic ensemble. In this case, the .â•… “L’↜expression gestuelle du temps démontre bien s’il le fallait l’unité et la diversité de l’espèce humaine en même temps qu’elle rend compte de nos premiers efforts cognitifs, efforts dans lesquels s’impliquait notre corps tout entier.” (Montredon 2001:â•›51–52). Translation MC.
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
head gesture variant is less expressive than the manual variant, and the cumulative variant, i.e. the kinesic ensemble, is the most expressive of all. Such gesture variants are called stylistic variants.
2.1â•… Overview of component substitutions Table 10 gives an overview of some of the substitutions found in the corpora referred to in this book. It enables us to compare those found between different body parts according to their signifying direction of movement: (1) upwards, (2) downwards, (3) forwards or outwards, (4) backwards, (5) towards oneself, (6) sideways, (7) to both sides, and (8) transverse. It shows substitutions: –â•fi
–â•fi
–â•fi
Between four body parts. The head, hand, index finger, and thumb are used indifferently to localize spatially or temporally, to designate concretely or abstractly, or to mime movements in various directions. A vertical reading of the table shows that they are mutually interchangeable in the following cases: when used to localize or mime an upward movement (1), to mime a downward movement (2), to designate or localize an external entity (3), and to designate oneself (5). Between three body parts. The head, hand, and index finger are interchangeable when used to localize the present by a downward movement (2), or to call towards oneself (5). In contrast, the head, hand, and thumb refer to a position behind oneself (4) that is linked to numerous meanings; these may be as diverse as failure, an unfinished enumeration, the past, or reference to something invisible, absent or unreal. Note that here one has the choice between two rotational movements of the head, i.e. lifted or turned backwards: lifted backwards, the head accompanies or replaces the hand raised up high with the palm facing backwards, whereas the head turned backwards accompanies or replaces the thumb moved backwards over the shoulder. Table 10 shows these binary permutations in detail. Between two body parts. The head and hand are interchangeable for an upward movement (1) to a high position signifying increasing exclamation (see Figure 1, Chapter 1) possibly with a negative connotation or for the well-known negative ellipsis ‘Ça!…’ (That!…); for an ample movement backwards (4) referring to the distant past, i.e. to an imaginary point situated far behind oneself (see Figure 40.2); for a movement sideways (6) indicating a parenthetic comment, or situating a posterior event on the right and an anterior event on the left (see Figure 42); for a lateral tilt placing some discursive arguments on the one hand, and others on the other (7); and for a transverse movement signifying totality (8). The head and thumb are interchangeable when used to localize a position behind oneself (4) and thus designate an unfinished sequence ‘X and so on’. Otherwise,
Elements of meaning in gesture
if one imagines a person situated behind oneself, it can signify either a challenge, ‘Tu peux t’aligner’ (you can measure yourself up to X), or failure, ‘Je peux toujours courir’ (I can always run), or refusal, ‘Tu peux toujours courir’ (lit. you can always run, meaning ‘whatever you do, I will not change my mind’). Designating a point situated behind oneself, a turn of the head or a thumb over the shoulder refers to the recent past (see Figure 40.1). Table 10 indicates the body parts that are interchangeable only when they perform straight-line movements, or rotational movements in the case of the head, in a certain direction. This list is not exhaustive, because two fingers, both index fingers or the thumb and index finger of one hand, can replace two hands to measure a gap; likewise, one hand can replace both hands to represent the compression of a Â�volume. Lastly, the thumb is interchangeable with the index finger for specifying Â�certain notions. These permutations are not random; there is an expressive or Â�semantic Â�reason for them. Table 10.╇ Overview of substitutions between Head, Hand, Index finger, and Thumb (Calbris 1990: 126–7) Meanings according to direction
Head
Hand
Index finger
Thumb
•
•
•
•
•
•
1. Upwards Localization Miming an upward movement
•
•
Increasing exclamation
•
•
Increase
•
•
Negative ellipsis “Ça!…”
•
•
Stopping (request to stop)
•
•
Objection
•
•
•
•
2. Downwards Concrete localization
•
Temporal localization
•
•
•
Miming a downward movement
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3. Forwards or outwards Designation, Localization
•
Provocation
•
Asking for confirmation
•
Point of agreement
• • •
• (Continued)
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
Table 10.╇ Overview of substitutions between Head, Hand, Index finger, and Thumb (Calbris 1990: 126–7) (Continued) Meanings according to direction
Head
Hand
Index finger
Thumb
Lifted Turned 4. Backwards Concrete localization
•
•
Failure through challenge
•
•
Unfinished enumeration:
•
“X and company” “Not to mention the rest!” Distant past
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recent past
•
•
Reference to the invisible, unreal
•
•
5.Towards oneself Self-designation
•
•
•
“Come”
•
•
•
“Follow me”
•
•
•
Calling:
6. Sideways Abstract localization: •
•
to the right: Future
parenthetic comment
•
•
to the left: Past
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
7. To both sides Weighing up discursive arguments 8. Transverse Totality, Perfection Negation, End
To state the obvious: a head movement can be superimposed on a hand movement, whereas a finger movement cannot be superimposed on a hand movement. That is just not possible! The consequence of this obvious fact is presented in Figure 45. Substituting the thumb or index finger for the hand, or the thumb for the index finger, introduces semantic nuances (base of the trihedron), whereas substituting the head for any of these body parts introduces stylistic nuances which do not change the meaning of the message (tip of the trihedron).
Elements of meaning in gesture Stylistic nuances Head Distant past
Recent past
Unfinished enumeration
Unfinished enumeration
Exclamation
Reference to
Negative insinuation
Failure, Challenge
Parenthetic comment
Increase
Anteriority/posteriority Totality Perfection
tion
Certainty Negation
tion
bjec
O Hand
Distant past Request to stop
Index finger
fica ecti
R
Semantic nuances
Un
iqu
ene
ss
Prio
rity
Recent past
Thumb
Request to pause
Semantic nuances introduced via substitutions between Hand/Index finger/Thumb (base of trihedron) Stylistic nuances introduced via substitutions between Head /Hand, Index finger, or Thumb (tip of trihedron)
Figure 45.╇ Types of nuances created by substituting body parts (Calbris 1990:↜127)
2.2â•… Stylistic variants Substituting body parts that can cumulate their movements by superimposition (Hand–Head) creates stylistic variants. A head movement may sometimes be used as a gesture out of discretion or circumspection in a particular social circumstance; it may replace a movement of the upper body which is either impossible or avoided for some reason. It often happens that such substitutable movements, situated at various levels of the body, are superimposed to strengthen the expression. Let us consider Figure 45. As we have seen above, the hand and/or the head perform various types of movement, some of which have several meanings (left column, read from top to bottom). They may refer to the distant past or to an unfinished enumeration by making an ample movement backwards, represent increasing exclamation by moving upwards to a high position, express a negative implication by moving upwards and outwards, and indicate a parenthetic comment as an aside placed indifferently to the right or left. Both of them may also situate anteriority on the left and posteriority on the right on the transverse axis, as we saw above (Figure 43). The transverse movement of the hand and/or the head is polysemous; a sign of totality, it can also expresses the notions of perfection (‘absolutely nothing to reproach’), of certainty (‘not a doubt’), and of negation (‘certainly not’).
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
By making a backward movement over the shoulder, the thumb and/or the head (right column) may refer to the recent past, accompany an unfinished enumeration, refer to someone or something absent, or signify failure or a form of challenge. The raised index finger and/or head (central column) accompany verbal expressions of increase.
2.3â•… Semantic variants 2.3.1â•… Change of body part Substituting body parts that cannot cumulate their movements by superimposition (Hand–Thumb–Index finger) creates semantic variants. To verify this, let us look at the lines connecting the corners at the base of the trihedron in Figure 45. When expressing opposition, the hand is reserved for objection, and the index finger for rectification. In expressing unity, the index finger is reserved for uniqueness, and the thumb for priority. Looking now at the corners at the base of the trihedron, we see that the thumb replaces the hand to request a stop, momentarily. Lastly, in gestural representations of the past, the hand refers to the distant past, whereas the thumb refers to the recent past. 2.3.2â•… Change of movement: from a straight to a curved line As yet, we have only considered semantic variants due to a change of body part. But a change of movement, from a straight to a curved line, is also very productive. Let us see how this expresses slight variations in the meaning of the same notions, beginning with those of time (see Figure 46). Continuity: without change/with change.â•… We may talk indiscriminately about prolonging or developing a matter, but we can use gesture to introduce a semantic distinction. Continuation or prolongation implies a straight-line movement forwards, a continuity without change; unfolding or development implies a curved progressive movement, and tracing one or several vertical loops that move forwards represents something unfolding by its own inherent movement and energy, a continuity with change. Result: Immediate consequence/Subsequent development.â•… An immediate temporal consequence is represented on the transverse axis by a rapid movement of the Level Hand (Appendix A, 5.) to the right*: 132 Chaque fois qu’il tombe de l’eau, *ça fait venir les moustiques Every time rain falls, *it makes the mosquitoes come (gesturally implied Â�meaning: ‘immediately’). A developed and repetitive consequence, however, will be represented by vertical loops*: 133 Et après, en général, *il y a une cascade de conséquences. And afterwards, in general, *there is a cascade of consequences.
Elements of meaning in gesture
Succession: segmented/alternating and linked.â•… The edge of the hand laterally cuts off the sections of a text published as a serial, whereas in order to represent the alternating succession of teams that work alternating shifts without interruption, one hand replaces the other in a single, endless circular movement. Enumeration: counted/repetitive.â•… In France, successive elements which appear as detached units are counted on the fingers raised in succession (thumb = 1, index Â�finger = 2, middle finger = 3…), whereas each new element enumerated in a string of Â�elements will be accompanied by a new vertical circle. Looping circles corresponds to enumerating as if one were repeating a recurrent refrain. Size: Height/Volume.â•… Size is shown in a two or three-dimensional space. In the first case, one indicates the height of something; in the second, its volume. Quantity/Overabundance.â•… A large quantity is represented by a level line at a certain height. Overabundance is represented by a large convex surface, and in keeping with the meaning of the word (an excessive quantity), the gesture represents overflowing↜. Totality: complete/united.â•… Having reached the ultimate level in a two-dimensional space, a large quantity becomes a finite and complete totality; in a three-dimensional space, it becomes a united and indivisible one. Totality may be considered as a set of things that is completed by adding one thing after the other until a maximum level, indicated by a transverse movement of the Level Hand, is reached: the set is full, complete. Or it may be envisioned as a composition of elements that are united, gathered into a total mass, which thus connects with the notion of generality and universality. A reference to the universe or the terrestrial globe seen as a sphere can be made concrete in various ways: by tracing a sphere, a hemisphere (the semi-finished outline of a sphere), or a horizontal circle (the projection of a sphere on to a plane). Perfection: Completion/Homogeneity.â•… The moral value corresponding to totality, i.e. perfection, will be represented by similar gestures: a transverse line or a circle. The latter, however, will not be drawn by the hand. Since perfection and precision are often related, the circle will be represented by the thumb and index finger joined at the tips to form a ring as if to hold something very fine. More: Cumulation/Addition.â•… Cumulation is represented by an increasing height, the palm rising parallel to the ground*: 134 Le prix du dollar monte, *monte, *il va crever le plafond. The price of the dollar is rising, *rising, *it will go through the ceiling. The action of adding is represented by the hand leaping forwards*: 135 On devrait *en rajouter, si je puis dire. One should *add some more, if I may say so. Less: Reduction/Condensation.â•… The gestural expression of reduction implies a shrinking of the space between the two palms in the Frame configuration, or between the
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
thumb and index finger moving towards each other in parallel in the Narrow Gap configuration. The equivalent notion of condensation assumes, however, that the unity of the whole is maintained. The concentration of a given mass is thus represented by the spread fingers of one hand which, by coming together at the tips, compress the space enclosed between them in the Pyramid configuration. Let us now look at gestures that require both hands. The notions they express include union, exchange, opposition, and enclosure. Limitation: Framing/Encircling.â•… The palms held in the Frame configuration delimit the space enclosed between them; they represent a sector. Is it possible to express delimitation by a curved movement? A circle delimits a zone, which is sometimes represented by a symmetrical movement of the concave palms*: 136 Toutes les femmes *sont entourées d’↜une meute d’↜hommes qui les guette, s’en empare. All women *are surrounded by a pack of men who eye them closely, take possession of them. Opposition: conflictual/logical.â•… Conflict is represented by two antagonistic entities, the two (hands closed in) fists*1 or the two index fingers directed towards each other*2: 137 Il y a beaucoup *1 de bisbille entre les propriétaires. There is a lot *1 of squabbling between the landlords. 138 *2 Ils sont à couteaux tirés. *2 They are at daggers drawn. In contrast, opposition during the course of something can only be illustrated by a reversal of direction; the sketch of a vertical circle directed backwards* represents logical opposition during the course of reasoning: 139 *À l’inverse. – *Au contraire, – *Par contre. *Inversely. – *On the contrary, – *On the other hand. Going and returning/Cycle.â•… A round trip that resembles going and returning, ebb and flow, is represented by an advance followed by a retreat of the hand. But a recurrence ‘without going back’ can only be evoked by a circular movement forwards. When this gesture is repeated it corresponds to the notion of a cycle (from Gr. kuklos meaning ‘circle’), which supposes the repetition of a series of events in a determined order. Approximation: Between two entities/Roughly.â•… Among the different gestures that can represent an approximation between two entities, the head moving repeatedly back and forth between two limits located to its left and right in a lateral Â�head shake* represents the notion of a margin: 140 Maintenant, je pense que oui, *c’est une affaire de dix à quinze ans Now, l think so, *it is a 10- to 15-year deal
Elements of meaning in gesture
The oscillation of the rounded hand* in the Bowl configuration (Appendix A, 3.) that seems to sculpt something large and at the same time turn around something conveys the etymology of the French words grosso modo, en gros, grossièrement, autour de, or environ are used to signify mediocrity or approximation: 141 On avait fait *un calcul grossier, à peu près↜… We made *a rough calculation, about↜… This gesture, which is common and can substitute for speech, seems to be based on a general symbol, one that is found in Hungarian in the etymology of the word körülbelül meaning ‘about’ (lit. kör means ‘around’, ‘circle’ and ‘within’). Loss of equilibrium: Imbalance/Upheaval.â•… Like the weighing pans of a balance, the palms initially held horizontally side by side, then moving one up as the other moves down*, represent imbalance: 142 *Parfois le passif risque de l’emporter sur l’actif *Sometimes there’s a risk that the passive tense will prevail over the active On the other hand, a backward arc will evoke the reversal of a situation, and a Â�complete forward circle* will evoke its disruption: 143 Non, parce qu’à ce moment, *l’enfer bascule et devient le paradis. No, because at that point *hell is overturned and becomes heaven
Proceed
Sequel
Without changing: continue Continuation or extension
or
Stable, permanent, continuous, constant, lasting
Eternal, sempiternal, perpetual
Immediate consequence
Subsequent development
Succession Segmented
Alternating, linked ‘In turn’
‘Serial’ Enumeration Counted Size Quantity Totality
While changing: evolve Unfolding or development
2 3 4 5 1
Repetitive
Height
Volume
Quantity
Overabundance
Complete
United
Full Rising
Global Whole
Figure 46.╇ Semantic nuances in straight-line or curved movements (Calbris 1990: 61–62)
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion Perfection
Completion
Homogeneity and precision
Cumulation
Addition
Flight. growth
Leap, progress
Less
Reduction, shrinking
Condensation
Limitation
Framing
Encirling
Confinement
From without ‘Sandwiched in’
From within ‘In his shell’
Opposition
Conflict ‘At daggers drawn’
Logical opposition ‘Inversely’
Exchange
Oneselfother
More
Barter Negotiation
Otherother Union
Substitution
Any exchange
Binding
Solidarity
Fusion Going and returning
Spatial: round trip
Temporal: cycle
Margin: between two limits
Average: ‘roughly’
Approximation
Loss of equilibrium Imbalance
Flipping Overturning Upheaval
Figure 46.╇ Semantic nuances in straight-line or curved movements (Continued)
To sum up, we can say that physical modifications of a gesture express nuances on the ideational level with respect to intensity or to nuances of meaning. Intensity may be modulated if substitutions can be cumulated (stylistic variants); nuances of meaning may be modulated if this is not the case (semantic variants). Let us now look more closely at semantic variants.
Elements of meaning in gesture
3.â•… The semantic contribution of the substitute By systematically comparing shades of meaning within a group of gesture variants, one can identify which shade of meaning is introduced by a substitute component. It appears that its semantic contribution is linked to one of its characteristics or physical functions. Taking the thumb as an example, for clarity’s sake let us begin by considering its physico-semantic possibilities.
3.1â•… The specific character of the thumb As one digit among others, the thumb stands for a unit (‘one’) in France, where it is considered to be the leading digit compared with the others. It represents that which is first, for example in an enumeration, and it generally accompanies the beginning of an explanation, *D’abord (First of all). It is used to signify priority or excellence by shifting the idea of ‘first’ from a comparative to a superlative relation. Thus it signifies ‘Champion!… Chapeau… Super… Comme ça!’ which all correspond to ‘Great!’ in different contexts of use. The thumb is the only digit that is anatomically opposable to the other four digits. Separated naturally from the fingers and directed towards oneself, it is of course the thumb which is lifted to the mouth in order to be sucked or bitten. Biting it is a manifestation of anxiety or embarrassment in an adult, and sucking it is a sign of shyness or sulking in children. Biting and sucking appear to be manifestations of a single vestigial gesture: Thumb-sucking among children – often quite old children – is fairly transparent in its relation to sucking at the breast, and its frequency increases and decreases with the rise and fall of moment-by-moment tensions; but once adulthood has been reached we have to put away childish things – or, at least, those that are detectably childish – and the oral-comfort actions have to undergo a metamorphosis. The nipple-sucking and teat-sucking of babyhood, after being transformed into the comforter-sucking of infancy and then the thumb-sucking of childhood, becomes the nail-biting and pencil-sucking of adolescence, which later becomes the gum-chewing, sunglass-sucking, cigarette and cigar-sucking, and pipe-sucking of adulthood. (Morris 1977: 50)
As a substitute for the nipple or teat, which pressed rhythmically makes the first liquid food flow into the infant’s mouth either from the mother’s breast or a feeding bottle, the thumb is associated by extension with drinks and all poured liquids, either directly into the mouth or into a glass. The thumb is lowered towards the mouth in imitation of drinking à la régalade, i.e. with the head thrown back, liquid
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
(represented by the thumb) is poured into the mouth without letting the lips touch the container13 (see Figure 48). This gesture was used in the French working-class milieu as a substitute for ‘On va s’en jeter un (verre) derrière la cravate?’ (lit. ‘Shall we throw ourselves a (glass) behind the tie?’), an invitation to go for a drink. When tipped sideways by rotating the wrist inwards, the thumb simulates pouring a drink into a glass and thus signifies the desire for a drink, either momentarily (‘T’as pas quelque chose à boire?’: Haven’t you got something to drink?) or permanently (‘Il doit picoler en douce’: He must booze on the quiet). The thumb is also used as a sign of failure, refusal, or privation: ‘Que dalle!’ (Nothing!) is synonymous with ‘Rien, rien à se mettre sous la dent’ (lit. ‘Nothing, nothing to put under one’s tooth’), and both locutions are expressed by flicking the thumbnail off an upper front tooth (see Figure 47).
‘Que dalle!’ (Nothing!) Figure 47.╇ Privation (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›102)
.â•… Cf. De Jorio (2000: 122) (the Kendon translation): “The hand arranged in this way imitates the shape of the glass flask that is in common use for drinking among the Neapolitans. The extended thumb represents the neck, and the rest of the hand, held as a fist, represents the body or the flask. By bringing the hand shaped in this fashion toward the mouth one imitates the act of drinking.”
Elements of meaning in gesture
‘S’en jeter un derrière la cravate’ (To throw oneself a (glass) behind the tie) Figure 48.╇ Invitation to drink in (Zaü Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›40)
Held perpendicular to the other digits and at shoulder level, the thumb is naturally directed backwards. In this way, it designates someone or something behind oneself, or the distance covered immediately behind oneself (recent past), or something that is not visible because it is behind you (reference), or occurs at the end of a series (the last in a queue, or an unfinished enumeration) and, by semantic extension, the reason for being in the last position (failure). These are all meanings expressed by the thumb or the head by making the same movement backwards over the shoulder (see Figure 45). Being the strongest digit, the thumb may represent the application of any significant pressure against a surface, whether it be for ringing a doorbell, honking a horn, or crushing something. In summary, as it is the first digit, in France the thumb represents the number ‘one’, then a priority and, by extension, excellence; the ordinal number shifts from being a comparative to a superlative marker. Separated from the other digits and naturally directed towards the speaker, the thumb is the digit brought to the mouth to symbolize drinking. Held at shoulder level, its natural orientation backwards allows the creation of many meanings that are all analogically linked to this specific direction.
3.2â•… Comparative use of the thumb and the index finger As indicated in Table 10, the thumb and index finger can be used to situate something above, below, or to the side, or to designate a concrete object or a person, including oneself. Raised in profile or towards oneself, they can both represent the number ‘one’. Raised outwards, they both signify a type of stopping. Both digits are used to press something. However, within their domain of shared signification, nuances are established.
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
3.2.1â•… Localization Both digits indicate a high position or ‘above’, but only the index finger can designate God in heaven and, on the basis of this abstract localization, accompany a prophecy or declaration that is considered important. The same applies to the opposite direction. Only the index finger can designate the present place ‘here’ or the present time ‘now’ (Hic et nunc) by pointing and moving downwards. There is also differentiation between them when they represent downward movements: doubtless because of its special position with respect to the other digits, the thumb pours and turns things over, whereas the index finger, longer and more slender, plunges or pierces. How do their representational scopes compare when they move sideways on the transverse axis? The thumb and index finger can both indicate a place, an object, or a person on the right or left. But here again, the index finger* seems to be preferred for referring to abstract localizations: 144 On attend les derniers renseignements, *côté chinois. We’re waiting for the latest information, *on the Chinese side. In summary, the index finger has a monopoly on abstract localization in all directions except backwards, the latter being reserved for the thumb.
3.2.2â•… (Self-)Designation Are the thumb and the index finger used indifferently to designate somebody or to localize something concrete? No, they are not entirely equivalent.14 The use of the thumb is considered cavalier: If I am busy and someone interrupts to ask me where an object is, I may respond by jerking my thumb in the appropriate direction. Such an action is considered rather impolite, and it is worth asking why. I am, after all, providing the required information. I am not ignoring the questioner, so why should he feel that my jabbing thumb is slightly insulting? The answer seems to be connected with the role of the thumb as the ‘brutal digit,’ or ‘power digit.’ (Morris 1977: 66)
I would add to this interpretation the fact that the thumb, the digit which can localize entities behind oneself with the most anatomical ease, seems to refer to the expression ‘par dessus l’épaule’ (over the shoulder), which conveys an impression of flippancy that may have its origin in the gesture.
.â•… See also Kendon (2004a, Chapter 11) for a discussion of the contrast between the use of the thumb and the index finger in pointing.
Elements of meaning in gesture
3.2.3â•… One: Priority/Uniqueness The raised thumb or index finger can represent the number ‘one.’ But while the thumb, the leading digit, is associated with the notion of priority, ‘en premier’ (first), the index finger is associated with uniqueness, ‘un seul’ (only one). 3.2.4â•… Stop: request to stop/rectifying objection Raised with the palm facing outwards, the thumb or the index finger stops someone. The thumb serves to call ‘Pouce!’ (lit. ‘Thumb!’: Time out!), both in sports and figuratively. The index finger stops to correct and signifies ‘Ah non, pardon!’ (Oh no, excuse me!). 3.2.5â•… Contact Anatomically, the index finger is longer and more slender; the thumb is stronger and thicker. While the thumb crushes, the index finger pokes and drives in. The former erases; the latter crosses out.
4.â•… The choice of variant The choice of a particular gesture variant can depend on the physical or the semantic context. The suitability of a semantic variant to a particular situation is often determined by its underlying polysemy. This issue will be dealt with in detail in Chapter 8 (Nuance of a variant due to the polysemy of the gesture). However, for the moment, let us examine how the choice of a variant is sometimes imposed by the sequencing of the gestures in which it occurs. To understand this phenomenon we shall analyse Examples 145–147 below. As a prerequisite for this analysis, one needs to know the respective symbolic values of the transverse and the sagittal axes, both of which lie in the horizontal plane (see Chapter 4, Direction of movement). These values have been established by systematic analyses of the corpora (see Chapter 5, Description of the method of analysis). The comparison of the samples of gestures sorted according to their components, for example according to the direction of movement, shows that movement forwards corresponds to the idea of a spatio-temporal progression, whereas movement to the right corresponds to a logico-temporal progression. But in the three examples discussed, taken from the corpus of utterances produced by Lionel Jospin (LJ), the gesture expressing logical progression (performed during the speech chain marked in italics) is not made to the right but moves forwards (stressed syllables are marked in bold face). 145 élu national [forward movement of the left hand] mais aussi élu [and towards the speaker] local comme je le suis
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
an elected official national [forward movement of the left hand] but also an elected official [and towards the speaker] local as I am15 146 Et puis, [transverse arc of the left hand to the left] il y a toute une série de mesures qu’elle propose, [forward movement] qu’on retrouvera progressivement dans la Loi contre les Exclusions. And then, [transverse arc of the left hand to the left] there is a whole series of measures that she proposes, [forward movement] that one will find again Â�progressively in the Law against Exclusions. 147 Mais ces [left hand in Right Angle configuration lowered rhythmically] Â�chambres sont élues au suffrage universel [moves forwards] direct But these [left hand in Right Angle configuration lowered rhythmically] Â�chambers are elected by universal suffrage [moves forwards] direct16 The forward movement presented in these three examples that accompanies but also, progressively, and directly represents progression and a straight line relation. But then representations of logico-temporal progression – whether associated with listing points (but also) or not (progressively) – are normally performed to the right, just like the representation of a straight-line relation (by direct universal suffrage). In the above examples, LJ chooses to go forwards and not to the right for reasons to do with gestural sequencing. The gesture is easier to perform, and in Example 146 it avoids a possible semantic contradiction. Let us take another look at each example: In Example 145, the choice of the direction forwards is due to a mental anticipation of the gesture sequence to be performed. Instead of going to the right to signify ‘but also’, LJ does this by making a movement forwards (but also an elected official) that enables him to continue using the sagittal axis to then make an inverse movement to refer to himself (local comme je le suis). In Example 146, the left hand draws a large transverse arc to the left in a fan-like movement to evoke all the measures deployed. If he then used the same hand to make a movement to the right to represent the idea of temporal progression, he would return to the point of departure! Under these circumstances only a movement forwards can translate the idea of progression. In Example 147, the lowering of the edge of the hand in the Right Angle configuration informs us about the categorical character of the utterance (see Chapter 5). From then onwards, the fingers are positioned in front of LJ and in the frontal plane. How can he then show the connection directly linking the electorate to the elected official? There is only one solution: go forwards. In fact, drawing a direct transverse line with
.â•… English word order: ‘as I am a national elected official but also a local elected official’. .â•… English word order: ‘by direct universal suffrage’.
Elements of meaning in gesture
the fingers in the frontal plane effectively creates a barrier. The gesture would cut the perspective in front of the speaker and contradict the idea of a direct connection. We thus observe a programming of the physical implementation of gestures that aims to reconcile the semantic imperatives with the possibilities that gestural encoding offers in order to produce a sequence of gestures that is economical in the effort required to produce them and which also respects their referential function. Gestural sequencing can thus be said to be ‘efficient’ insofar as the speaker produces the most semantically accurate and the most physically convenient solution that meets the requirements of his utterance. The efficient motor sequencing of referential gestures provokes what would pass for anomalies if one did not take into account the sequential context. The Â�phenomenon recalls the mimetic representation of a concrete event reported by Enfield (2004): the movement of a fish caught in a basket trap placed in flowing water. The hands are used symmetrically to sculpt the fluted opening of the trap and then asymmetrically to represent the event: one hand draws the movement of the fish moving into the trap, while the other maintains its curved configuration and thus represents the whole trap by sculpting just one half of it. The one hand represents the new element while the other holds the truncated representation of the element previously referred to, which is mentally reconstructed since it has already been evoked.
5.â•… Isolating the semantic features of a notion via its gesture variants One generally thinks of the semantic contribution of a gesture variant as an added nuance, a complement and not as the expression of a semantic feature of a notion. However, it seems that each gesture variant of perfection expresses a different semantic feature of the notion (see Table 11). The French dictionary Le Petit Robert defines the verb ‘parfaire’ as “rendre complet (to make complete), achever (to finish)”; the adjective ‘parfait’ is defined as “qui est au plus haut de l’échelle des valeurs (that which is at the top of the scale of values)”; and the adverb ‘parfaitement’ is defined as “d’une manière parfaite (in a perfect manner), absolument (absolutely), complètement (completely), entièrement (entirely)”. In these definitions one recognizes the traces of the image of a maximum level, of completion (1). Some equivalents given for the adjective ‘parfait’ have a negative prefix: ‘impeccable, irréprochable, incomparable’, in other words: flawless (2). Lastly, it should also be noted that the adjective ‘parfait’ used in the sense of ‘strict’ or ‘exact’ implies precision and meticulousness (3). These definitions indicate the three semantic features ‘completion’, ‘flawlessness’, and ‘precision’ that can be formulated by gesture variants of perfection: 1. Perfection cannot be surpassed. The maximum level attained is illustrated by a transverse movement of the palm turned to face the ground*:
Chapter 6.╇ Different gestures represent one notion
148 *un talent fou *an incredible talent Another reference to totality and its moral derivative, perfection, is the transverse movement of the chin*, which allows the gaze to sweep across the whole horizon: 149 Et certains d’entre eux sont *de remarquables chirurgiens. And some of them are *remarkable surgeons. 2. Perfection is flawless, without a negative element. Minus multiplied by minus equals plus. This implied double negation is expressed by two gesture variants of negation: either by the Palm Forwards*: 150 Ce film? *Remarquable This film? *Remarkable or by a lateral head shake*: 151 *Il était très gentil *He was very nice 3. Perfection implies precision, meticulousness. The circle, a symbol of perfection, is formed by uniting the tips of the nails of the thumb and index fingers, resulting in the Ring hand configuration*, seem to pinch something very fine: 152 *Au quart de poil; **Ça, c’est la perfection *Very accurately; **That, that’s perfection This gesture, sometimes symmetrical, often substitutes speech. Table 11.╇ Isolating semantic features of ‘perfection’ via its gesture variants Notion 1
Gestures
Perfection (completion)
←
Perfection (flawlessness) Perfection (meticulousness)
← ←
Transverse movement of the hand or head Palm Forwards or Head shake Digital pinch in the Ring configuration
Notion 2 →
Totality
→ →
(Double negation) Precision
In this chapter, it was proposed that comparing the gesture variants of one notion enables one to reveal the meaning of each variant and to find the relevant physical feature that underlies each gestural sign. To demonstrate this, gesture variants that express conceptualizations of time by localizing temporal events or showing their duration were examined. We saw how they offer physico-semantic differentiations by modifying the movement component in various ways, for example, the movement form (straight line versus curved line), axis of progression (sagittal versus transverse)
Elements of meaning in gesture
or direction (backwards versus forwards on the sagittal axis; to the left versus right on the transverse axis). Moreover, in the case of curved movement, the orientation in a particular direction (clockwise versus anticlockwise) and repeated pathways were shown to be semantically distinctive. Similarly, we saw how the choice of body part(s) may modify the meaning conveyed by a gesture. For example, a circle can be traced in the sagittal plane using one hand versus two interlocking hands turning around each another, or using hands versus digits, to express different shades of meaning. The topic of time concluded with a discussion of different conceptual models of time across cultures. This highlighted their common foundation in concrete experience and tendency to spatialize aspects of temporal conceptualizations that our gestures reveal. A distinction was made between stylistic and semantic variants: whereas stylistic variants either amplify or attenuate the degree of expressivity when conveying the same meaning, semantic variants offer the possibility of introducing different shades of meaning when conveying the same basic notion by changing a secondary component. We looked closely at potential substitutions between two gestural components: body part with a focus on substitutions between the head, hands, index finger and thumb; and movement with a focus on substitutions between straight and curved movement form. We then examined the physico-symbolic particularities of the thumb to study its semantic contribution, the shade of meaning it conveys when substituted by the index finger to express different notions. In conclusion, it was proposed that the possibility of choosing between gesture variants allows a speaker to adapt his gestural expression to a particular situation for a physically practical or a semantic reason and, moreover, that this adaptability also offers researchers an advantage: the analysis of the gesture variants of a given notion allows one to reveal the semantic features that constitute the notion in question.
chapter 7
One gesture represents different notions Polysemy and Polysign In this chapter we shall study how a given gesture may represent several different notions. This will deepen our understanding of two key concepts, namely polysemy and polysign that were introduced in Chapter 1. Let us recall how these are defined. A gesture is said to be polysemous when it expresses several different notions on different occasions of use. On the other hand, a gesture is said to be a polysign when it expresses several different notions simultaneously on one occasion of use. Using numerous examples taken from the corpora, these two concepts will be dealt with here in depth. In the case of a polysemous gesture, we shall see how its different contextual meanings can be explained either by the presence of a core analogical sign that is subject to semantic derivation, or by the presence of several analogical signs. As the analogical sign is a motivated sign (see Introduction), one can say that the polysemy of a gesture is explained by a single motivation subject to semantic derivation in the first case, and plural motivation in the second. In both cases, the objective is always to identify the analogical link between one of the gesture’s physical features and its contextual meaning (The polysemous gesture and its explanations). In the case of a polysign gesture, we shall see how it evokes two different notions simultaneously by producing two motivated signs established by the presence of two analogical links. It is sufficient for a gestural component, such as a body part’s configuration, to support one analogical link and for another gestural component, such as its movement, to support another analogical link for the resulting gesture (the movement of a body part in a particular configuration) to be a polysign: it contains two analogical links and is therefore a bireferential gesture. It is argued that a gesture may not only be broken down into relevant gestural components (i.e. body part, configuration, orientation, localization, movement), but that a component, such as movement, may also be broken down into relevant subcomponents (e.g. form of movement, direction of movement). In this case, the movement itself is a polysign because it contains two analogical links: it is a bireferential gestural component. It is sufficient for another component of the gesture, such as the configuration, to support a third analogical link for the gesture to be multireferential (The polysign gesture).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Lastly, it is sufficient for a semantic derivation to be grafted on to one of the gestural signs within a polysign for the number of its contextual meanings to increase (The polysemous polysign gesture).
1.â•… The polysemous gesture and its explanations Two essential explanatory principles of polysemy will be specified here and examined in depth. In Chapter 1 we encountered the more complex of the two: one gestural component may have several analogical links, each of which conveys a different meaning (see Characteristics of the gestural sign). These links were obtained by analysing examples of the Ring configuration in gestures produced by different cultural groups (inter-cultural) and within the same cultural group (intra-cultural) in different contexts of use. The potential of one gesture to support multiple analogical links is one of the explanations for gestural polysemy. The other is semantic derivation based on one analogical link, and this is the principle which we are going to consider first.
1.1â•… An analogical link subject to semantic derivation The polysemy of a gesture may be explained by a semantic derivation from a gestural sign based on one analogical link. To find such cases, the corpus one has collected is sorted into lists of co-speech gestures that have physical components in common (see Chapter 5, 2. Extract samples sorted by gestural components). The gestures within each sample are then compared from the physical and the semantic points of view.
1.1.1â•… Example: Palm(s) Forwards signifying (self-protective) opposition By way of example, let us consider the different contextual meanings of the gesture ‘Palm Forwards’ (PF), in which the flat palm is held up in a frontal plane and facing forwards. PF gestures may be performed symmetrically with both hands (**) or with just one hand (*). Note that in Kendon’s treatment of four Italian examples of the same gesture that he calls “Vertical Palm (VP) gestures”, he also points out the relevance of the distance of the the hand(s) from the speaker’s torso (Kendon 2004a:â•›251–255, 262). Pushed outwards, PF* is a sign of: Repulsion: 153 *Mais je n’↜aime pas cette intolérance *But I don’t like this intolerance Eh bien, *c’↜était rentré dans l’ignorance collective: *des mécanismes *d’invisibilité (video 35) Well, *it had been absorbed into the collective ignorance: *the mechanisms *of invisibility (See Figure 49.1)
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
Simply raised, PF*(*) is a sign of: Prudence: 154 Vous avez vu *comme j’ai été prudente You saw *how prudent I was Dans ces cas, *elle n’ose rien dire In these cases, *she doesn’t dare say anything **Mais c’est la seule chose que je dirais en termes de d’histoire (video 36) **But that’s the only thing that I would say in terms of of history (See Figure 49.2) Refusal of responsibility: 155 Je ne sais pas **je ne me prononce pas sur la peine de mort I don’t know **I take no stance on the death penalty Stopping: 156 *Stoppez la construction *Stop the construction Avant je faisais beaucoup de stages, puis j’ai dit: *Basta Before I used to do a lot of training courses, then I said: *That’s enough Request to wait. The gesture stops weak attempts to change a speech turn: 157 *Je voudrais ajouter un mot *I would like to add a word Excuse-moi, *je te rends la parole tout de suite Excuse me, *I’ll let you speak again in a second Agreement. The gesture stops the interlocutor making accusations or giving explanations: 158 **Oké, ça va **OK, that’s fine
Oui, *j’ai compris Yes, *I’ve understood
Refusal-negation: 159
*Non merci *No thank you *Je ne signais pas, non non non (video 37) *I wasn’t going to sign, no no no (See Figure 49.3)
Objection: 160 *Pas question *Out of the question Je dirai à X qu’il n’y a pas *que le plutonium, *il y a l’uranium enrichi I shall say to X that there’s not *only plutonium, *there’s enriched uranium
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Restriction: 161 *Quoiqu’il y ait quand même de très grands acteurs dans cette campagne (électorale) *Although there are after all some very important actors in this (electoral) campaign Quelquefois du rhum dans son café, mais il le mesurait: *pas beaucoup Sometimes some rum in his coffee, but he measured it: *not a lot Perfection: 162 Il est bon, *ça c’est vrai, dit une femme à propos d’un café qu’elle trouve cher, mais bon It’s good, *that, that’s true, a woman says regarding a coffee that she finds expensive, but good
– Tu as vu le film? – *Remarquable!, lui répond son amie – You’ve seen the film? – *Remarkable!, replies his female friend
Repulsion: It had been absorbed into the collective ignorance
Prudence: But that’s the only thing…
Refusal: No no no
Figure 49.1–3.╇ Semantic derivation
In all these examples of the different contexts of use in which the PF gesture occurs, one recognizes the idea of opposition; it is, however, a self-protective opposition if one takes into account the notions of prudence, refusal of responsibility, and agreement by capitulation thus expressed. The gesture may be an analogical sign derived from the reflex of self-protection, with the forearms and hands raised to form a protective panel in front of the face. PF is basically a sign of self-protection, of defence. Moreover, it is one of the gesture variants used to signify perfection as well as one of the variants used to signify negation. In this respect, it expresses the absence of a flaw and opposes all possible objections regarding the quality being spoken about. All the meanings of PF are more or less derived from the function of (self-)protective defence. The polysemy of the gesture is thus explained by a semantic derivation based on an analogical link of function. If, as indicated in Chapter 1 (see An isomorphic analogical sign), one observes that a semantic derivation correlates with a parallel adaptation of a gestural sign on the physical level, one can say that this physico-semantic derivation confirms what one suspects the analogical link could be.
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
1.1.1.1â•… Confirmation of the analogical link: Gradational opposition.â•… One way to verify the suspected value of the analogical link is to verify whether a modulation of the sign on the physical level entails or provokes a modification echoed on the semantic level, thus justifying the link itself. Let us consider further examples of PF gestures to see if the surface area that the speaker (re)presents as a physical opposition appears to be proportional to the strength of the opposition or self-protection thus symbolized. The palm constitutes an opposing surface that can be physically reduced or enlarged: one reduces it by reducing the angle of orientation (from a right angle to an acute angle in relation to the horizontal plane) or the surface area (a raised finger facing forwards); one enlarges it in a static way by doubling its surface area (two Palms Forwards), or in a dynamic way by a transverse movement that one can repeat by shaking one hand, or perform symmetrically with both hands, Note that the static, symmetrical gesture in Example 155 associated with refusing responsibility translates a clear concern for self-protection. Let us see what enlarging the frontal panel produces when it is obtained dynamically: a transverse movement of one PF*: 163 J’ai jamais compris pourquoi, *jamais, *jamais I’ve never understood why, *never, *never a symmetrical transverse movement with both PFs**: 164 Donc **c’↜est une question à peu près réglée Therefore **that’s a question [that’s] more or less resolved (subject closed, curtain drawn) ([hands joined], ‘je vous en prie’) Pardon, **n’en parlons plus ([hands joined], ‘I beg you’) Excuse me, **let’s say no more about it **C’est la seule chose qui puisse nous sortir de là **That’s the only thing that can get us out of there (gesturally implied meaning: ‘nothing else can’) a repeated transverse movement: shaking one PF*: 165 Là encore, *je ne prends pas parti parce que je ne veux pas There again, *I’m not taking sides because I don’t want to a repeated transverse movement: symmetrically shaking both PFs**: 166 Ah non, **surtout plus ça Oh no, **especially not that anymore Regardless of whether it is static or dynamic, the opposition signified by both hands is semantically more marked (Examples 154, 164, 166: **Mais C’↜est la seule chose que je dirai (But that’s the only thing that I shall say). – **C’↜est la seule chose qui puisse… (That’s the only thing that can…). – **n’en parlons plus (let’s say no more about it). – **surtout plus ça (especially not that anymore). In contrast, shaking one
 Elements of meaning in gesture
hand seems to correlate with the notion of fearful trembling (Examples 165, 166: *je ne prends pas parti parce que je ne veux pas (I’m not taking sides because I don’t want to). – **surtout plus ça (especially not that anymore), and transverse movement with absolute character (Examples 163, 164: *jamais (never). – **n’en parlons plus (let’s say no more about it). – **C’↜est la seule chose ‘aucune autre’ (That’s the only thing ‘no other’). The symbolic opposition is reinforced by the symmetry of the manual configuration alone, which doubles the size of self-protective barrier, while the movement introduces another element of meaning, that of ‘totality’ if it is transverse (see also Chapter 1, Investigating the analogical link) or that of ‘fear’, if it is a shaking movement. Inversely, let us look at cases in which the surface area of the opposing body part is reduced and consider the corresponding meanings. An overview of these physicosemantic correlations is given in Figure 50. PF with a slightly concave palm* accompanies a verbal ellipsis: *Ca!… (That!… : Well, as for that…). A sign of insinuating something negative, the gesture is complemented by a facial expression that specifies what is implied, e.g. ignorance, indifference, powerlessness, depreciative obviousness, denigration, warning, etc. 167 Je lui ai dit: *Ah ça!… si elle m’avait dit ça I said to her: *Ah that!…if she had said that to me *Alors là!… méfie-toi *Well then!… be careful Note that the verbal units are ‘shifters’, i.e. demonstratives that refer to the theme or person in question (Calbris & Montredon 1980). The orientation of the slightly raised PF is more or less oblique*. In the first example, it is raised so that the angle of orientation is increased in proportion to the restriction: 168 A signaler *[acute angle] en marge, *[raised higher, approaching a right angle] très en marge de l’actualité To indicate *[acute angle] on the periphery, *[raised higher, approaching a right angle] very much on the periphery of current events Regardons la presse dans les capitales étrangères, **du moins dans trois d’entre elles. Let’s look at the press in foreign capitals, **at least in three of them. On fait un inventaire. Est-ce que vous les rendez aussi dynamiques *au moins qu’ils l’étaient? (video 38) We take stock of the situation. Do you make them just as dynamic *at least [as dynamic] as they were?
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
Instead of the hand, only the index finger facing forwards is raised* as a sign of restriction, often introduced by the conjunction ‘but’ or the preposition ‘except’. The index finger opposes in order to make the utterance more precise or to rectify: 169 *Ah pardon, ce n’était pas pareil *Oh excuse me, that wasn’t the same [thing] La mère est d’origine chaouia, *en partie The mother is of Chaouia origin, *partly On aboutit à quelque chose qui est aussi, *mais pas seulement, politique (video 39) One ends up with something which is also, *but not only, political Instead of the hand, just the thumb facing forwards is raised to request a stop, momentarily. This gesture, synonym of ‘Pouce!’ (lit. ‘Thumb!’: Time Out!), can replace or accompany speech. P Hands Hand(s) Index finger Thumb s y s i c a l ................................................................................ S e m a n t i c
Refusal of responsibility
Self-protection Stop Request to stop Restriction Objection Refusal Negation Negative insinuation
Restriction
‘Time out!’
Figure 50.╇ Parallel attenuation, physical and semantic: Opposition to the outside (Calbris 1990:╛119)
Examples 167–169 show that the phenomenon of attenuation is to be found on the physical level as well as on the semantic level. A negative insinuation appears to be somehow contained in the concave palm facing forwards. As a semantic variant, restriction or partial opposition is offered by a partially raised palm oriented in an oblique plane and facing forwards. Instead of adjusting the angle, another possible way to attenuate is to reduce the opposing surface area further by raising just one finger,
 Elements of meaning in gesture
the index finger or the thumb. The index finger, the indicator finger, is used to oppose in order to add precision, while the thumb, the strong finger, is raised outwards to stop something for a moment. It is posited that the phenomenon of parallel attenuation on the physical and semantic levels confirms the value of the link established between them. The isomorphism observed confirms the existence of the analogical link.
1.1.2â•… Example: The fist punch signifying aggression In Chapter 1, the Fist configuration expressing physical strength as well as psychological strength and the strength of a moral value offered us examples of semantic Â�derivation (see The polysemous gesture, Examples 1–3). What they all have in common is the analogical link of physical strength established by the configuration and from which their meanings are derived to suit different contexts of use. But the fist punch provides us with examples of semantic derivation in which the meaning of the gesture differs depending on who or what is at the receiving end of the punch. The fist, a natural weapon, sketches a blow; shaken, it is a threat; raised, a call to the fight; thrust away from the body at stomach level, it accompanies a vengeful response, a Â�cutting remark (see Figure 51.1). In mime-boxing, one playfully simulates an Â�aggressive Â�reaction to someone; and lastly, striking the table with one’s fist aims to intimidate someone, to stop him before one reacts violently. By a role reversal, when one strikes one’s own hand, the hand that is struck represents the adversary, the person or the fate one is rebelling against. Punching the palm of one’s own hand*, a very common image in cartoons, can represent an anticipated fight, among other things. The interlocutor is given to understand that one has just made a manly decision, that one is ready to fight. Punching into an empty space is polysemous: its meaning varies according to whether the punch thus diverted away from its object is implicitly aimed at someone or at an abstraction, for example, the word that escapes one’s memory. The fist punch is also used to refer to sexual behaviour. The sexual act is interpreted as an aggression by children (Freud 1942:â•›95–97), and this interpretation is also apparent in verbal expressions that adults employ (Lakoff & Johnson 1980/1985:â•›119). For instance, in French one finds the notion of striking a blow in the verbal expression ‘tirer un coup’ (lit. to fire a shot), likening the male sex organ to an arrow, a rifle, or a machine-gun. Here is an example: the cover of Lui magazine (July 1982) shows a beautiful young woman wearing in a G-string with a pencil and a questionnaire entitled “Est-elle un bon coup?” (lit. is she a good hit? meaning ‘is she good in bed?’) on her thigh. Various fist-punch gestures allude to the sexual act. The fist punching the palm from below*(see Figure 51.2) illustrates the expression ‘baiser quelqu’un’ (to fuck someone). The bodily target may be precisely localized, for example, from behind, ‘l’avoir dans le cul’ (lit. to have it in the ass), ‘l’avoir dans l’os’ (lit. to have it in the bone, i.e. in the sacrum), or ‘l’avoir dans le dos’ (lit. to have it in the back). By a role reversal,
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
the gesture evokes either the attitude of the aggressor or that of the victim, deceiving someone or being deceived by him respectively. Symbolizing failure in this way does not necessarily place the blame on someone else. The failure may be due to an event or one’s own error. For example, an electrician explains to a friend: 170 Mais si tu mets les circuits en parallèle, *(see Figure 51.2), But if you put the circuits in parallel, *(gesturally implied meaning: ‘you’re fucked’).
Fist thrust outwards at stomach level “And wham” A vengeful response
Fist punching the palm from below “I really had him!” Deceit
Figure 51.1–2.╇ A physico-semantic derivation (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›144–145)
Another sexual aggression, a fist punch performed perpendicular to the stomach*, evokes a vengeful response (see Figure 51.1): 171 *Bien envoyé, *et vlan. – Ils ont tellement l’habitude de voir les faiblesses de l’autre qu’ils oublient les leurs, *et tac, ils se font battre. *(lit.) Well sent, *and wham. – They have such a habit of seeing the weaknesses of other people that their forget their own, *and (lit.) clack, they get beaten. At first sight, the gesture seems to represent a fist punch into the adversary’s stomach, i.e. punching him back. But the verbal expression ‘dans le baba!’ with which it is associated reveals its true motivation: it is yet another representation of sexual aggression, the ‘baba’ referring to the female sex organ. This sexual aggression, more natural than the one coming from behind the body, evokes straightforward vengeance, while the underhand palm punch is synonymous with deceit. Punishment or self-punishment? One can make an act of contrition, even ironically, by striking the chest three times with the fist, *Mea culpa, *mea culpa, *mea maxima
 Elements of meaning in gesture
culpa. Upon forgetting something, making a blunder, or failing at something, one strikes the forehead, mouth, cheek, or thigh with the palm, the fist being reserved for hard body parts like the forehead! The place struck indicates the place to be blamed. Otherwise, the palm represents the entire body of the subject punishing himself.
1.1.2.1â•… Confirmation of the analogical link: an underlying aggression in each case. We thus observe a set of mutual aggressions with permutations between the aggressed and the aggressor(s). The blow is delivered by oneself (→) and aimed at oneself, at others, or at an abstraction; and inversely (←), it is delivered by others or an abstraction and aimed at oneself. Table 12 presents a synthesis of the variants of the fist punch. Each of them changes its meaning according to the interactive context and according to the identities of the aggressor and the aggressed. For example, the fist lowered into an empty space changes its meaning according to whether it represents a blow aimed at oneself (something forgotten), against others (intimidation), or against something to be conquered (determination, courage). Here is a list of the variants in Table 12 sorted according to the recipient of the blow, against oneself, against others, or against an abstraction: 1. Against oneself. – By oneself (oneself → oneself): see the gesture variants of self-punishment indicated above. – By others (oneself ← others): someone who deceived or ‘had’ you (underhand fist punch against the palm). – By an abstraction (oneself ← fate): the fate responsible for crushing you (fist punch against the skull) or for getting you into difficulties (underhand fist punch against the palm). 2. Against others. – By oneself (oneself → others): Brandishing a fist in front of oneself is a threat to someone or a call to combative action. Pounding on a table is a gesture of angry intimidation. Punching an empty space perpendicular to the stomach is a sign of vengeful response. Punching the palm from below represents revenge by deceit. Punching the palm from above indicates the decision to fight. – By others (others ← others): Here again, we find vengeful response and deceit, while the two fists meeting head on would represent conflict between two individuals. 3. Against an abstraction. – By oneself (oneself → abstraction): the fist punching into an empty space or against the palm represents determination or the decision to fight. – By an abstraction (abstraction → abstraction): two fists directed against each other* can represent a conflict between two ideas just as well as a conflict between two people: 172 C’↜est d’ailleurs pour ça *qu’il y a un conflit très dur entre les deux cultures. It is indeed for this reason *that there is a very tough conflict between the two cultures.
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
Table 12.╇ Physico-semantic derivation of the fist punch (Calbris 1990:╛96) Gestures
Meanings
Links
Interactions
Fist lowered into empty space
Something forgotten Intimidation Determination, Courage
Hitting
oneself
→ → →
oneself, fate (1) others (2) abstraction (3)
Fist strikes stomach or skull
Self-punishment: Forgetful Blow of fate
Hitting
oneself
→
oneself
(1)
←
fate
(1)
Fist thrown at Vengeful response stomach level Vengeful response
Aggression oneself (response)
→ ←
others others
(2) (1)
Fist strikes palm from below
Triumph – ‘Screw someone’ Failure – ‘To be screwed’ Failure – ‘To be screwed’
Sexual aggression (deceit)
oneself
→
others
(2)
← ←
others fate
(1) (1)
Fist strikes palm from above Fists knocked against each other
Self-punishment: Failure Combative decision
Hitting
oneself
Impact, conflict
Hitting
others abstraction
→ → → → →
oneself others abstraction others abstraction
(1) (2) (3) (2) (3)
1.1.3â•… A contradictory semantic derivation: From negative to positive We have already seen that Palm Forwards is fundamentally a sign of opposition that can signify agreement and perfection (see above, Semantic derivation). As speech substitute, the lateral head shake is a sign of negation, but it can accompany verbal utterances of positive assessment, of certainty, and of agreement. Does the valence change from negative to positive? In order to verify this, let us study positive meanings of the two gestures one after the other. 1.1.3.1â•… Lateral head shake.â•… First, let us consider the positive notions associated with the lateral head shake*. Very positive appreciation: 173 *Il était très gentil. – *On a bien travaillé. – *Très aimables. – *Très bon accueil. *He was very nice. – *We’ve worked well. – *Very friendly. – *Very warm welcome. Certainty: 174 *Mais il est certain que j’étais influencé par lui *But it is certain that I was influenced by him
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Agreement, almost always talked about in the same way: 175 *Absolument. – *Oui absolument, je crois tout à fait. – Absolument, *tout à fait, bien sûr. – *Absolument, absolument. – *Oui, exactement. – Oh oui, oh là, *tout à fait. *Absolutely. – *Yes absolutely, I believe completely. – Absolutely, *completely, of course. – *Absolutely, absolutely. – *Yes, exactly. – *Oh yes, oh wow, *completely. The notion of very positive appreciation (superlative or ‘intensified’ positive assessment) has already been indicated and studied by Anglo-Saxon authors: Goodwin (1980), Schegloff (1987), McClave (2000), and Kendon (2002). Frequently implying a negation (Calbris 1983, 699–702, Kendon 2002) and replacing a redundant complement, the head shake* in the following examples is equivalent to the antithetical paraphrase given in brackets: 176 *Voilà la réponse que je peux faire. – Il faut maintenant se tourner *avec résolution vers l’avenir. *That’s the answer that I can give (I cannot give any other) – It’s now necessary to turn *with resolution towards the future (without hesitation) It expresses a negative answer to a question that one has asked oneself: Cette Jeanne *me semble très artificielle. This Jeanne *seems to me very artificial (I do not agree with this biography of Jeanne d’Arc). Similarly, it replies in an anticipatory way to a question that the interlocutor could have posed: C’est d’avoir dit *simplement les faits. It’s to have stated *simply the facts (without cheating) Within the context of making a choice, the head shake is a negative response to the other eventuality envisaged: *Ça revient au même. – *Je vais garder DASH. *That amounts to the same thing (there’s no difference). – *I’m going to stick with DASH (I reject the other brands) Does this mean that the lateral head shake accompanying the above utterances of very positive evaluation, of certainty, and of agreement implies a negation? If we reconsider the examples of very positive appreciation (Example 173) in their verbal contexts, the lateral head shake* responds to an objection that has actually been formulated or imagined. For example, an old lady on a bus explains to her two friends: “Ils sont aussi aimables à la poste d’Asnières qu’à Paris 62, *très aimables” (They are just as friendly at the post office in Asnières as in Paris 62, *very friendly). Equivalent to ‘do not believe that they are less friendly’, the head shake serves both to deny someone else’s presumably negative opinion and to reinforce the positive aspect of the utterance.
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
The lateral head shake* expressing certainty (Example 174) paraphrases the verbal utterance: “*Mais il est certain que… ”, *(no doubt) But it is certain that… Two head movements that express agreement are physically opposed in that they are performed on two different directional axes. A downward head movement on the vertical axis, signalling confirmation derived from submission, can replace the word ‘Yes’, whereas a lateral head shake on the transverse axis (Example 175) accompanies the formulaic expressions of agreement “*Absolument (Absolutely) and *Tout à fait (Completely)” formulated in terms of totality. Furthermore, one evokes the notion of totality by a transverse movement of the hand or head sweeping the line of the horizon. The head shake is then to be viewed as a repetitive transverse movement (see Chapter 1, Investigating the analogical link). This is the case in the last example (Oh oui, oh là, *tout à fait): the head shake prolongs an alternating transverse movement to the right (→ “oh oui”), then to the left (← “oh là”), which seems to represent the idea of quantity by referring to the large amount of space covered between right and left, and culminates in certainty (↔ “tout à fait”). In a caricatural way, the verbo-gestural sequence expresses the whole character of consent: Head movement
Simultaneous speech
→ ← ↔
Oh oui, oh là, tout à fait
We then have a choice about how to interpret the agreement signified by a lateral head shake. Does the gestural sign represent the notion of totality conveyed in the formulaic expression of agreement? Does it express a refusal to refute the assertion uttered by the interlocutor by implying ‘without a doubt’? Insofar as the head shake is simultaneously an emblem of negation and one of the co-speech signs of totality, it is possible for it to cumulate both signs. We shall consider this proposal in Chapter 8 (see Is the polysemous gesture a polysign?). For the moment, let it suffice to note that a lateral head shake can express the absolute character of agreement (sign of totality) that is specifically ‘without any reservation’ (sign of negation).
1.1.3.2â•… Palm forwards.â•… Let us now consider positive notions associated with the configuration Palm Forwards (PF)* with reference to examples given above (An analogical link subject to semantic derivation): erfection P In the examples cited (Example 162), the PF gesture expressed a double negative, ‘There is no possible objection’. What it refers to is perfect; there is nothing to reproach, neither about the coffee (It’s good, *that, that’s true), nor about the film (*Remarkable!).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
ertainty C Does PF express ‘No doubt’? It is possible, but the oath gesture interferes with the notion thus expressed and the verbo-gestural message becomes: “*I’m sure about it (*= and ready to swear that it is true)”. Hence, the gesture contributes a piece of complementary information. greement A The same applies to the examples cited (Example 158) in which the gesture specifies the type of agreement by contributing a complementary piece of information conveyed by the two PFs raised in a sign of surrender. The agreement thus formulated is a self-protective request to stop, a capitulation in the face of the arguments, the insistence, the prattling or the aggression of the interlocutor. One stops discussing, one gives in like the male guest in Figure 52 who capitulates with his hands and his words when confronted with the feminist whose finger tapping on the table visibly indicates the irritation conveyed by her words.
© 2009 CLAIRE BRETECHER – DARGAUD BENELUX Les Frustrés 2: 55 Feminist: Do you think it goes without saying that you’ll take me under your wing? Male guest: OK, OK! Figure 52.╇ Agreement by capitulation
By comparing these examples of lateral head shakes and PF that occur as co-speech gestures and the three positive meanings that they have in common (perfection, certainty, and agreement) the scope of their semantic derivations becomes apparent,
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
i.e. what double negation can mean: no flaw = perfection; no doubt = certainty; no objection = agreement. In principle, minus multiplied by minus equals plus. Table 13 summarizes how this principle applies in the above examples of these gestures of negation. This comparison also shows the possible interference of the oath gesture ‘I swear’ or that of capitulation (derived from the response to “Hands up”) that are expressed by the same gesture of Palm(s) Forwards (Table 13, right column). One’s certainty may be so great that one is ready to swear that something is true, and agreement may be conceded by prudence, ‘I won’t say no’, resulting in no objection being raised. In contrast, agreement expressed by a head shake* has an absolute character when it accompanies the formulaic expressions: *Absolument (Absolutely). – *Tout à fait (Completely). Let us now consider Table 13 line by line from top to bottom. When a head shake or a PF gesture accompanies a verbal expression of positive assessment they both imply a double negative that amounts to the gestural expression of positive assessment (first line). In contrast, when accompanying a verbal expression of certainty (No doubt), only PF can also evoke the oath gesture which reinforces the notion of certainty (second line). Similarly, when accompanying a verbal expression of agreement (No objection), only the head shake, known to express negation without speech, can express the idea of totality present in the formulaic expressions of agreement Absolument (Absolutely) and Tout à fait (Completely) (third line). Table 13.╇ The semantic derivation of negation and its limits Gestures of negation
Head shake ‘No’
Palm Forwards ‘No’
also expressing Positive assessment: Certainty: Agreement:
Not negative (- x - = +) No doubt (- x - = +) Total agreement
No flaw (- x - = +) ‘I swear!’ The oath gesture No objection (- x - = +) Palm(s) Forwards Emblem of capitulation Capitulating, conceded agreement
Note that the principle of double negation (saying ‘yes’ by not refusing) only seems to be applicable if the gesture adopted is derived from primary reflexes of passive refusal. This is clearly the case in respect of PF, a sign derived from the reflex of self-protection, and the head shake, a sign derived from a reflex of avoidance by turning the head from side to side. A gesture of active refusal signified by a brusque movement of the backs of the fingers outwards cannot acquire a positive meaning by the semantic derivation of double negation. Performing this gesture while saying “C’est parfait” (that’s perfect) will never signify ‘there’s nothing to reject’ because the speaker is not mentally ill; he does not
 Elements of meaning in gesture
reject what he appreciates. The gesture will be understood as a positive propulsion: “*C’est parfait (let’s get there fast)” or “*C’est parfait (as no fault can be found with this product, it can be dispatched)”. Investigating the analogical link and its physical origin allows us to understand why a particular gesture is suited to a particular situation and not to another. Throwing light on the deep motivation of the sign explains the semantic-pragmatic choice of one variant from among other possible ones.
1.2â•… The presence of several analogical links: Plural motivation We have just seen how different meanings can be evoked by differences in the way in which a gesture expressing opposition is performed. Apart from semantic derivation based on one analogical link, the polysemy of a gesture can be explained by the presence of several analogical links: different contexts of use may ‘activate’ different analogical links inherent to the gesture. This explanatory principle was illustrated in Chapter 1 by analysing examples of gestures in which the clenched fist occurs (see One gesture represents several notions: Polysemy and polysign). Here we shall deepen our understanding by analysing the meanings of the transverse movement of the Level Hand as this brings to light the physical elements that convey meaning. We shall see that different contexts of use may activate different analogical links based on not just one or another of these physical elements, but also one or another of their combinations. Note that Kendon (2004a:â•›251–255) treats eight Italian examples of the same gesture called the “ZP” gesture.
1.2.1â•… Example: The transverse movement of the Level Hand Let us begin by creating a sample giving the various contextual meanings of this gesture that consists in a transverse movement, sometimes symmetrical, of the Level Hand(s)*(*). This will enable us to identify the range of notions that it can represent (see Chapter 5, 3. Determine the gestural referent). Examples 177–191 given below have been selected from the 149 examples found in the corpora and are grouped together according to their gestural referent: 177 Quantity: Tous les samedis soir, *on était une multitude de James Dean. – Claude m’a appris *énormément de choses, parce que c’est *un très grand professionnel. Every Saturday night, *we were a pack of James Deans. – Claude has taught me *an enormous amount, because he’s *a real professional. (2/4 examples.)1
1.â•… The number of (examples presented here/occurences in the corpora).
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
178 and as a value judgement, Superlative: Dans le romantisme *le plus complet. – En tout cas, *c’est très bien de me l’avoir dit. – *de la plus haute fantaisie. In Romanticism *the most complete.2 – In any case, *it’s very good to have told me that. – *of the most far-fetched fantasy. (3/6 examples) 179 Totality: *Total…. – **Tout est prêt. – **Y en a partout. – *N’importe qui s’y mettait. – C’est ringard, **mais alors. Bon. (video 40) *Total…. – **Everything is ready. – **They’re everywhere. – *No matter who sets about it. – That’s outdated, **but really (completely). OK (5/32 examples) 180 and as a value judgement, Perfection: Elle est *ravissante. – Un talent *fou. – C’est *ce qu’il y a de plus beau. She’s *stunningly beautiful. – a talent *incredible.3 – That’s *what is the most beautiful. (3/10 examples) Directness: 181 on the temporal level: Chacun s’est rallié à la raison d’État *immédiatement après. – Chaque fois qu’il tombe de l’eau, *ça les fait venir. – Mais les régions vous font la réforme du système éducatif, *mais en moins de cinq ans. (video 41) Everyone adhered to State policy *immediately afterwards. – Every time rain falls, *it makes them come (the mosquitoes). – But the regions are reforming the education system for you, *but in less than five years. (3/9 examples) 182 on the logical level: Following the temporal and logico-temporal results, one shifts to the unavoidable logical consequence that cannot fail to ensue; it is certain. One thus obtains the meanings of: Determinism: *C’est mathématique. – Vous oubliez *toujours, *toujours le fait qu’il y ait eu une crise mondiale. *It’s mathematical. – You forget *always, *always the fact that there has been a world crisis.4 (2/4 examples) Obligation: Ca, **c’est indispensable. – *Il faut le combler. That, **that’s indispensable. – *It’s necessary to fill it (the gap in the Social Security system. (2/3 examples) .â•… English word order: ‘In the most complete Romanticism’. .â•… English word order: ‘an incredible talent’. .â•… English word order: ‘You always, always forget the fact that there has been a world crisis’.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Certainty: Ça, *je m’attendais à l’objection. – **Je suis sûr de ne pas me tromper. – **C’était l’assurance d’une famine fromentaire. That, *I was expecting the objection. – **I’m sure I’m not mistaken. – **That guaranteed there would be a wheat famine. (3/8 examples) 183 on the value-judgement level: Frankness: Que de fois j’entends, *et je le dis très franchement. How many times do I hear, *and I say this to you quite frankly. (1/2 examples) 184 Cutting: Une zone de mauvais temps *va scier la France en deux. – Il y avait des anciens bâtiments: *ils ont tout rasé. An area of bad weather *is going to cut France in two. – There were some old buildings: *they’ve knocked everything down. (2/5 examples) 185 Negation-Refusal: Non, *pas du tout, ça ne me tente pas du tout. – *Plus un sou. – Et depuis, *j’ai rien eu. – Ils peuvent vous dire qu’un tel président *n’aura aucune autorité, *aucun crédit. – Donc, *y a pas besoin. – **Rien No, *not at all, that doesn’t tempt me at all.– *Not a penny. – And since then, *I’ve had nothing. – They can tell you that such a president *will have no authority, *no credibility. – Therefore, *there’s no need. – **Nothing). (6/15 examples) The absolute character of the negation expressed by this gesture is confirmed by the terms accompanying it: ‘nothing; no; never; no more’ 186 The End: *Finie, la période de désengagement. – Là, c’était le comble, j’ai dit: **Ah non, fini! – Ah non, la morue: *Terminé! – **Ne me touchez pas, **je m’arrête, **je me retire donc, **je ne joue pas. (video 42) Over, the period of detachment. – Well, that was the last straw, I said: **Oh no, finished! – Oh no, cod fish: *Gone! – **Don’t touch me, **I stop, **I withdraw therefore, **I’m not playing. (4/11 examples) – At a market stall, a young seller about to add up the bill looks at her customer while making the gesture cited. The latter replies “yes, yes” to the silently stated question, a synonym of “will that be all?” Flatness, in the sense of: 187 a surface, literally and figuratively: Un travail très propre, *tout était rangé sur la table. – Elles ont grimpé très vite et maintenant, *elles plafonnent. Very neat work, *everything was arranged on the table. – They climbed up very quickly and now, *they are levelling off. (2/12 examples)
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
188 a second surface covers the first, literally and figuratively,: *C’est une croûte dessus, c’est dur. – C’est un cas de mythomanie *qui fait tache d’huile. *It’s a layer above, it’s hard. – It’s a case of mythomania *that’s slowly spreading. (2/4 examples) 189 to lay something out flat, literally and figuratively: *Mettez bien vos affaires sur votre lit. – Je crois qu’il faut mettre un peu **les choses en ordre. – Et dont l’explication nous donne l’idée d’une dépliure, d’une mise à plat, **mais dans le sens **du déplié. (video 43) *Put your things on your bed. – I think that it’s necessary to put a little **things in order.5 – And whose explanation gives us the idea of an unfolding, of a, of a laying flat, **but in the sense **of spread out. (3/3 examples) 190 a level, literally and figuratively,: *Il suffit que le corail affleure. – C’est pas au même niveau, **c’est pas le même plan. *It’s enough for the coral to show on the surface. – It’s not on the same level, *that’s not the same level. (2/6 examples) 191 or making something level, i.e. equality, in one domain or another: Le taux est resté *le même. – Parce que ce carcan assurerait *la cohésion sociale. – **Les mains sont égales, **elles jouent la même chose. (video 44) The rate has remained *the same. – Because this yoke guaranteed *social cohesion (uniformity). – **The hands are equal; **they play the same thing. (3/15 examples) In Examples 187–191, the gesture expresses the notions of levelling – flattening – standardizing – equalizing. Transferred to the temporal domain, the movement will evoke a regular, immutable, or permanent phenomenon; and to the affective domain, tranquillity, or serenity. Moreover, the gesture recalls the origin of the following figurative expressions: ‘Plat comme une limande’ (as flat as a flounder); ‘Être à plat’ (lit. to be flat: to be exhausted); ‘A plat ventre’ (lit. flat on one’s belly: flat on one’s face); ‘Faire la planche’ (lit. to do the plank: to float on one’s back). The analogy with the flat of the hand here is obvious. But how can we find the other analogical links that the gesture can establish between some of its physical features and the meanings of quantity and totality, determinism, obligation, certainty, frankness, cutting, negation, and finality? We know that other gesture variants expressing totality have a component in common: the transverse movement of the hand or gaze that sweeps the horizon, thus representing the whole visual field, everything, everywhere. It is the edge of the hand, or more exactly the movement of the edge of the hand,
.â•… English word order: ‘I think that it’s necessary to put a bit of order into things’.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
which becomes relevant to express the notion of cutting. The idea of directness that is common to the notions of determinism – obligation – certainty – frankness supposes the representation of a linear traceform made by a moving point: hence it is the movement of the fingertips which becomes relevant. The idea of negation expressed by the palm in front of the body (Palm Forwards) opposing something approaching from the outside is signified here by a horizontal movement of the palm facing downwards (Level Hand). Oriented horizontally or vertically, could the palm stop an opposing force? By comparing other gesture variants of opposition, we shall be able to answer this question. The notion of finality implies stopping a process that has come to an end. Would this be represented by the palm stopping a progression, originating from the ground? A comparison of Level Hand gestures with other gesture variants expressing finality will allow us to confirm this analogical link, or otherwise. Several analogical links become readily apparent (see Figure 53). The different meanings of the same gesture make one or another of the components relevant (movement or configuration), or even one of the physical features of the configuration (the palm, the fingertips, the edge of the hand, or the orientation of the palm); most frequently, the analogical link resides in the movement of one of these elements (the movement of the palm, the fingertip(s), or the edge of the hand). The movement makes the fingertip(s) relevant: they represent directness – A followed directly by B – by drawing a straight line. It makes the palm relevant: since it can counteract a progression coming from the ground, it represents a complete stop by drawing a flat obstacle. It makes the edge of the hand, perceived as a chopper that slices something into parts, relevant. It makes the palm, perceived as a flat surface with a haptic sensitivity, relevant: the transverse movement extends the flat surface into a horizontal plane that, due to the orientation of the palm, becomes a surface that can cover another one. As the above examples demonstrate, the transverse movement of the Level Hand has not only numerous analogical links, which is why this gesture is said to have plural motivation, but each link is also applicable in numerous domains, giving rise to semantic derivation. For example, directness represented by drawing a straight line from A to B expresses immediacy on the temporal level and an immediate consequence on the logical level, i.e. determinism, certainty, or obligation; whereas on the level of moral judgement, directness expresses frankness. Figure 53 presents the range of analogical links inherent to this gesture that are evidenced by examples found in the corpora. Let us recall a comparable case of polysemy: lowering the Rigid Hand (Appendix A, 11.) in the sagittal plane [If.d] (see Chapter 4, Examples 26–29). Its polysemy is likewise explained either by the linear traceform drawn by the fingertips moving from a high to a low position (Example 26); or by the brusque movement of the edge of the hand directed towards the ground (Example 27); or by the movement of the palm drawing a vertical surface (Example 28); or by the orientation of the palm held perpendicular to a progressive force approaching from the side and to which it is opposed, thus creating an obstacle, a barrier, a limit (Example 29).
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions  Gesture
Transverse movement of the Level Hand
Relevant feature
Movement the fingertip makes relevant: that draws
the palm that resists
the edge that cuts
the flat palm that covers
Analogical links
Everywhere
Straight line
Obstacle
Cut
Horizontal plane
Meanings
Quantity Totality
Directness
Stop-refusal Cutting
Flat surface
Semantic derivations
Superlative Perfection
Determinism Certainty Obligation Frankness
Negation Refusal End
2nd Surface (same) Level Equality Stability
Figure 53.╇ The plural motivation of a polysemous gesture (Calbris 1990:╛140)
The confirmation of each analogical link that we have caught a glimpse of up to now is obtained by comparing the gesture variants of each one of the notions expressed by the polysemous gesture: totality, stop-refusal, and cutting. Comparing all the gesture variants of cutting, for example, allows one to isolate the priority physical element that is common to them all (movement of the edge of the hand), on the one hand, and the semantic nuance (total severance) conveyed by the transverse movement of the Level Hand, on the other. How such nuances may be conveyed by polysemous gestures will be dealt with in Chapter 8 (Nuance contributed by the polysemous gesture to each notion). To conclude this initial study of gestural polysemy let us recall one of the main tenets put forward that gestural expression constitutes a coherent symbolic system. Investigating the phenomenon of polysemy within the context of this system helps to establish and explain underlying principles that govern how gesture signifies. Whether the analysis pursued starts from the gesture or the meaning it expresses, the goal is always the same: to look for the common element on the physical level as well as on the semantic level in order to isolate the natural link reuniting them, and therefore the gestural sign(s) contained within the gesture. In short, the objective is to detail all the physical elements conveying meaning in order to isolate the physico-semantic foundations of the gestural symbolic system and to advance an interpretive hypothesis with respect to those foundations.
2.â•… The polysign gesture It was stated in Chapter 1 that a gesture is a composite unit made up of subunits (see Identifying gestural units). Some gestural components (body part, movement) can be
 Elements of meaning in gesture
decomposed into subcomponents that may convey meaning and are therefore relevant. For example, we have seen that a flat-hand configuration displays several physical elements with the potential to convey meaning and thus become relevant physical features: the fingertips, the palm, and the edge of the hand. Similarly, a curved-line movement is characterized by both its form and direction, both of which may be relevant. Thus gestures consist of many physical elements that may be relevant. As it is the analogical link, based on a relevant gestural component or subcomponent, that determines the meaning conveyed, several types of polysign can be obtained. A bireferential gesture has two analogical links based on two components. A bireferential component has two analogical links each of which is based on a subcomponent, for example, the form and the direction of a movement. A multireferential gesture has more than two analogical links based on its components and/or their subcomponents. Table 14 shows the types of polysigns according to the number of analogical links established by the physical features of gestures, which may signify in a wide variety of simultaneous combinations. Table 14. ╇ Types of polysign Gestural components
Analogical links Types of polysign
Configuration Movement –––– ––––
–––– –––– –––– –––– ––––
2 2 3
Bireferential gesture Bireferential component Multireferential gesture
Key: –––– an analogical link
2.1â•… A bireferential gesture The following three gestures given as examples of bireferential gestures are all different movements of the fist. Presented first of all in parallel, they will be analysed later one after the other.
7 [the left fist is raised upwards] tellement c’était un… [and falls again, reopened, on to the sofa] un secret bien gardé (video 7)
[the left fist is raised upwards] it was such a… [and falls again, reopened, on to the sofa] a closely guarded secret. 192 J’appartiens à la minorité gauchère [the right fist traces a curve from left to right] mais j’ai fait cet effort [and opens] de passer euh à la majorité droitière. (video 45) I belong to the left-handed minority [the right fist traces a curve from left to right] but I’ve made this effort [and opens] to join er the right-handed majority.
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
193 [the fists turn around each other] Il faut un changement idéologique [and separate] violent. (video 46) [the fists turn around each other] There needs to be an ideological change [and separate] violent.6 In these three cases, the gesture (the duration of which is indicated by the text in italics) ends before the end of the verbal unit is reached. It only accompanies a part of the verbal formulation of the notions it represents. In a way, it anticipates speech, at least the verbal utterance of one of the two notions it represents, as the detailed analysis below demonstrates: In Example 7, the fist is clenching an abstract object; it is guarding a secret, while its movement upwards represents increasing exclamation that serves to reinforce the augmentative verbal exclamation expressed by “tellement” (such). The hand then falls and opens before the speaker says “un secret bien gardé” (a closely guarded secret). His idea that is formulated in the first part of the utterance is made visible by the gesture, and after a moment’s hesitation it is verbalized. Firstly, he expresses himself both gesturally and verbally, and secondly he explains himself verbally. In Example 192, the clenched fist represents psychological strength. The deceleration of its movement in a curved line from left to right expresses the effort necessary for the transfer ‘from… to’, which is only uttered verbally after the gesture has ended: “de passer à la majorité droitière” (to join the right-handed majority). If we compare the meanings of the fist in Examples 7 and 192, two different analogical links in this hand configuration become apparent: the enclosure required the secret to be kept and the strength required for the effort to be exerted (see Chapter 1, The polysemous gesture). In Example 193, the movement of the hands turning around each other, the one replacing the other, expresses idea of change. But the movement is produced with the hands in the Fist configuration*, a sign of strength. The change represented by the gesture at the beginning of the utterance “*Il faut un changement idéologique” (There needs to be an ideological change) therefore has a forceful character, which is what the end of the verbal utterance confirms: “violent”. The following examples are more complex. 194 On arrive sur le dossier de Vilvorde à des conclusions [right hand in the Pyramid configuration, pointing towards the speaker, is lowered] qui n’étaient pas celles qu’avait envisagées la direction de l’entreprise au départ One comes to conclusions about the [Renault factory in] Vilvorde file [right hand in the Pyramid configuration, pointing towards the speaker, is lowered] that weren’t those that were envisaged by the management of company [Renault] in the beginning
.â•… English word order: ‘There needs to be a violent ideological change’.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
The Pyramid configuration of the hand, in which the fingers converge at a point, expresses the particular character of the conclusions in question. Oriented backwards towards an implied self, it expresses personal character; it concerns the company’s own conclusions. The downward movement states insistence: the apex of the movement of insistence corresponds to the vocal accent on celles (those). In short, the speaker is insisting, with his voice and his gesturing, on the notions of particularity and of belonging that he represents manually. In Example 194, the shape and orientation of the hand each have a referential function (bireferential gesture), while its Â�movement has a demarcative function. The gesture simultaneously serves two functions: it is Â�multifunctional and, in addition, bireferential. 195 Vérifier [both hands in the Bowl configuration, palms facing the speaker] que [advance in parallel twice] vraiment, les élèves ont la perception d’avoir des acquis. (video 47) To verify [both hands in the Bowl configuration, palms facing the speaker] that [advance in parallel twice] really, the pupils have the feeling of having acquired skills. The concave hands in the Bowl configuration [ΩΩ] are able to evoke the ideas of a container, its contents, or the act of taking. Given the verbal context here, their orientation towards the speaker [ΩΩb] implies that he is taking possession of what they contain. Their movement forwards [ΩΩb.f] in two stages coincides with the bisyllabic rhythm of the simultaneously uttered word: “vrai-ment” (really). Given the initial position of the concave palms oriented towards the speaker, the movement represents a progression in stages and, in addition, increasing possession over time. Thus, the verbal context, “the pupils have the feeling of having acquired skills” allows us to establish (1) the relevant physical features of the gesture, (2) their respective contextual meanings, and then (3) their expressive synthesis signifying a progressive assimilation in stages. The fact that the gesture is interpreted a posteriori, and in relation to the verbal context, does not rule out the fact that the speaker has already formulated his idea well before he expresses it verbally. The gesture functions like a synthesized sketch of the idea to be expressed in words (video 47).
2.2â•… A bireferential gestural component Not only a gesture can be bireferential, but also a single component. This is the case of a movement in which each subcomponent (form and direction of the movement) proves to be a conveyor of meaning. Examples 196–198 are characterized by the movement’s curved form in an anticlockwise direction (stressed syllables are marked in bold face). Figure 54 presents these movement forms and directions with their corresponding meanings. 196 Donc on a cette cette double mission de de le faire [the index fingers, facing each other, draw two parallel series of loops going towards the
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
speaker whilst the torso moves backwards] et de nous regarder le faisant [smile]. (video 48) Therefore we have this this twofold mission to to do it [the index fingers, facing each other, draw two parallel series of loops going towards the speaker whilst the torso moves backwards] and to watch ourselves doing it [smile]. 197 Et donc euh [elbow on the table, the speaker’s right hand draws a circle repeatedly on itself, anticlockwise, in the sagittal plane] l’orthographe, ça vient aussi avec la maturité. (video 49) And therefore er [elbow on the table, the speaker’s right hand draws a circle repeatedly on itself, anticlockwise, in the sagittal plane] correct spelling, that comes with maturity too. 198 Est-ce que son esprit de responsabilité [anticlockwise loops, hand moving forwards] doit consister au contraire à l’accompagner et à faire qu’elle soit possible? Must [the management’s] sense of responsibility [anticlockwise loops, hand moving forwards] involve on the contrary accompanying [the company’s development] and acting to make it possible? This series of examples will allow us to demonstrate two interesting phenomena: not only the bireferentiality of a gestural component, here movement, but also the polysemy of one of the elements of this gestural component, the anticlockwise direction of the loops moving towards the speaker. Let us consider the examples one at a time: Having analysed the gestural expression of time, we know that vertical loops can refer to the course of time, and to the course of an action taking place: they signify ‘doing it’. In Example 196, the loops move backwards – towards the speaker. Generally, vertical loops moving backwards refer to going back in time and to distant anteriority. This is not the case here, since it is a question of introspection: “to watch ourselves doing it”. This means that the physical direction backwards-towards the speaker represents two symbolically different directions: backwards and/or towards the self. The direction towards the self refers here to ‘centering the self ’. The gesture formulates the idea of introspection during an action by combining the representation of a temporal development via vertical loops and that of self-centering via their displacement towards the speaker (video 48). In Example 197, the circle drawn repeatedly on itself could represent the course of time required for maturity to develop, and the anticlockwise ‘regressive’ direction towards the speaker could simply represent a movement towards himself: “that comes”. But this would be to reduce the essential meaning of the gesture: the repetition of the identical movement form without displacement attracts attention to the movement itself, which is then to be interpreted as a repeatedly performed curved movement towards the speaker. Given its curvature, this movement towards the self no longer designates the self (as in Example 196), but it represents an introduction into the self, the repetition expressing the effort of assimilation. This example concerns an appren-
 Elements of meaning in gesture
ticeship, and assimilation requires time: “correct spelling, that comes with maturity too”. By examining the verbal context, we can see that by its direction and repetitive movement the gesture expresses the phenomenon of assimilation and in a way paraphrases the verbal utterance! (video 49) In Example 198, the loops evoke the company’s development over the course of time. But the direction of the looping is anticlockwise in accordance with the logical inversion indicated in the phrase “au contraire” (on the contrary). In this case we have a combination of two physical features: the forward displacement of the successive loops represents progression, while their anticlockwise direction represents logical inversion; synthesized into a whole movement, the loops move forwards but in a regressive direction. The gesture makes it explicit that the person in the position of responsibility must, on the contrary, accompany the phenomenon of increase. Examples: 196
Loops
The course of time 197
+
Repeated circle
Repetition 198
Towards the self
Self-centering
Introspection during action
Towards the self
+
Forward loops
The course of time
=
Into the self
= Assimilation-Apprenticeship
Anticlockwise
+ Logical inversion
=
Opposition & Development
Figure 54.╇ Bireferentiality of a gestural component
2.3â•… A multireferential gesture If each physical element of a gesture is potentially a conveyor of meaning, the respective meanings of the different elements can be associated within the same gesture. Example 199 opposes movements of the left hand to the left to a movement of the right hand to the right and allows us to examine this phenomenon:
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
199 Donc [the left palm, while moving in a transverse arc to the right, returns to the centre] par rapport à la situation que nous avons trouvée, [then, slightly folded in the Right Angle configuration, it moves completely to the left] où des efforts hein avaient été faits par les gouvernements précédents pour réduire les déficits, [the right hand, also folded in the Right Angle configuration makes two leaps to the right] nous avons réduit encore le déficit public. Therefore [the left palm, while moving in a transverse arc to the right, returns to the centre] in relation to the situation that we found, [then, slightly folded in the Right Angle configuration, it moves completely to the left] where some efforts huh had been made by the preceding governments in order to reduce the deficits, [the right hand, also folded in the Right Angle configuration makes two leaps to the right] we have reduced further the public deficit.7 The interpretation is made according to the new element introduced in relation to the preceding gesture; it is based on the sequencing of the gestures (see Chapter 1, Gestural sequencing). The left palm designates the situation beforehand, as the one located on the left (“in relation to the situation that we found”). Maintaining its position on the left where the past is located, the left hand folds into the Right Angle configuration. The forward movement of the backs of the fingers thus represent the impetus at that time (“where some efforts huh had been made by the preceding governments”) towards something better, represented by the frontal panel of the fingers that has moved forwards (“in order to reduce the deficits”). The choice of the left hand, its configuration and its movement, are therefore all elements conveying meanings deduced from the verbal context. Let us consider the end of the example. Opposing the preceding governments (left hand: them) to the current government that he is heading, the speaker changes hands (right hand: us) in order to signify the prolongation of the action of deficit reduction by a movement to the right. But the form of the movement on the right, the arc, is of importance. Through the image of a leap, LJ expresses the crossing of a threshold, or going a step further represented by the vertical panel formed by the joined fingers of the right hand folded in the Right Angle configuration. The two stages of the leap are in synchrony with the vocal accents aiming to semantically highlight the new reduction: “we have reduced further the public deficit”. The multireferentiality of each gesture in Example 199 is explained by the fact that each gestural component presents an analogical link that conveys meaning. Firstly, the laterality of the hand: the change of hands, representing that of the acting entity,
.â•… English word order: ‘we have further reduced the public deficit’
 Elements of meaning in gesture
represents the change of government. The configuration of the hand: the palm shows something, while the backs of the fingers push forwards, showing the deficit reduction move on a step further. The direction of movement: the progress to the left represents the previous improvement, then the movement to the right represents the subsequent prolongation of the improvement. Lastly, the form of movement: the arc ‘passing over’ represents going a step ‘further’. In conclusion, this study of the multireferentiality of the co-speech gesture (Calbris 2003a) shows the signifying combinations of physical elements that occur most frequently (configuration and movement) and, furthermore, the possibilities of extending the combinatorial arrangement to involve several components (laterality of the hand, its configuration, its orientation, and its movement) or subcomponents (movement form and direction).
2.4â•… The case of the ‘complex’ gesture In general, the meanings conveyed by the gestural components supplement one another to serve the multifaceted representation created by the gesture. But sometimes this multifaceted representation requires one of the components to be modified so that the analogical links necessary for a synthesized representation can be cumulated. In other words, an addition on the symbolic level requires a slight transformation on the physical level. In this case, we are dealing with a so-called ‘complex’ gesture. For example, in order to simultaneously represent mixing and approximation, usually signified by the two hands turning around each other in the first case, and by a rotational oscillation of the concave palm facing downwards in the second, a screen writer and a philosopher perform the same synthesis (see Figure 55), i.e. an alternating oscillation of the two concave palms, one behind the other, as if they were interlocked*: 200 The screen writer says: *l’espèce de désarroi dans lequel se trouvent les hommes et les femmes maintenant. *the sort of disarray in which men and women find themselves now. 201 Here it is a question of belief: Je n’aime pas beaucoup *le judéo-chrétien. I don’t like very much *the (term) Judeo-Christian (‘this approximate mixture’). These two examples show that it is necessary for the speaker to change the gesture that evokes the notion of mixing while maintaining the analogical link that expresses
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions
it, i.e. that of interlapping. They also show that the ‘complex’ polysign gesture can be polysemous, since we observe different combinatorial arrangements of the two meanings that it illustrates. In fact, in the given contexts, the notions of mixing and approximation evoke equally well the approximation of a mixture, a kind of confusion, and an approximate mixture.
Gestures
1. Two hands turning around each other
2. Rotational oscillation of the concave palm
Synthesis of 1. & 2. Alternating oscillation of the two concave palms, one behind the other
Meanings
Mixing
Approximation
Kind of confusion Approximate mixture
Figure 55.╇ A ‘complex’ polysign gesture (Calbris 1990:â•›149)
3.â•… The polysemous polysign gesture The phenomenon of the polysemy of a polysign gesture has already been indicated above, but it has to be investigated further by analysing another gesture. The wealth of symbolic evocations obtained by a movement forwards of the backs of the fingers folded in the Right Angle configuration [T.f] is amazing. We know that it increases with the polysemy of each gestural component, which may concern the movement or the configuration or both. Movement forwards [.f] points to a goal, represents a displacement towards a Â�targeted object or the communication partner in front of the speaker. This may be a displacement towards or against what is happening in front of the speaker. The Â�movement simply expresses ‘this is advancing’, and nothing indicates if what is Â�advancing is in itself mobile. The action can be inflected in a wide variety of ways: to advance in front of someone, behind him, or with him; to make something advance, to push; to be inside what is advancing; to advance towards or to advance against; or to advance from or to a temporal landmark. Figure 56 gives a schematic synopsis of these various Â�possibilities. Time and space are conceived as integrated in the perceptual experience of displacement: both the localization of something and the path leading towards it are spatio-temporal perceptions. We are therefore dealing with some kind of progression in space, in time, and then on a scale of values.
 Elements of meaning in gesture −−
Y | | ↑ Advance :
----
↑
[↑]
↑
s.th. s.one Push
inside s.th.
towards s.one Give
↑ against
↑ ---from
↑ to
Reject
Move away
Goal
Figure 56.╇ The polysemy of a movement forwards
The Right Angle configuration [T] itself represents an obstacle, a limit, a boundary situated somewhere on a path followed in space, in time, or on a scale of values. Here is a sample of the meanings of the gesture [T.f] obtained by combining one of the meanings linked to the movement forwards [.f] with one of those linked to the Right Angle configuration [T]. The coded and simultaneous reading of the gestural and verbal elements aims to facilitate their comprehension. Here is how the first sample is to be read. The code for the gesture or gestural component is given in square brackets. Hence, the gesture [L uT] reads: left hand [L] raised [L u] and folded in the Right Angle configuration [L uT] with the corresponding element of meaning within the context of the verbal utterance [limit] given on the line directly underneath the French transcript. Then the gestural component, a forward movement [.f], and the corresponding element of meaning [in the future] are always given underneath. ‘The limit in the future’, the forthcoming date is explicitly given verbally: “Saturday, May 2”. So that the correlation between the onset of the gesture or gestural component in its verbal context and its corresponding element of meaning is clearly visible, the English translation of the verbal utterance is given on the last line. Note that only the new element in the gesture is coded to highlight its relevance: [.f] and not [L uT.f]. This method of transcribing the gestural components as they appear in the gesture sequence allows one to understand better how the elements of meaning conveyed by the gestural components [T] and [.f] interact to produce the meaning of the gesture in each new verbal context. Now, let us look at the selected examples: 202 [L uT] le samedi [.f] 2 mai, dans un peu plus de huit jours [limit] [forthcoming] [L uT] Saturday [.f] May 2, in a little more than eight days 203 [R T.f] Et là, le Président m’a dit: “oui, je ferai ça.” [from there] [R T.f] And there, the President said to me: “yes, I’ll do that.”
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
204 [L T.f] et qui a abouti à un oui: oui au Traité de Maastricht, et oui à l’euro [right to the end] [L T.f] and that will result in a yes: yes to the Treaty of Maastricht, and yes to the euro 205 le FLNKS et le RPCR sont tombés d’accord [R T.f] pour une solution évolutive. [progressive stop] the FLNKS and the RPCR have come to agree [R T.f] on an evolving solution. 206 je pense que [L T.f] la décision qui va être prise est une décision tout à fait… [stop in the future] I think that [L T.f] the decision that is going to be taken is a decision [that is] completely… 207 [L uT] c’est une décision historique [.f] mais surtout c’est une décision positive [a stop] [to obtain a higher value] [L uT] it’s a historic decision [.f] but above all it’s a decision positive 208 Sinon, on s’écarte [L T.fu] de ce qu’est la loi, la règle, et le sens même de… [far from the fixed limit] Otherwise, one departs [L T.fu] from what is the law, the rule, and the very sense of… 209 L’euro doit être [∏.d] un atout ou [.f] un tremplin pour [TT.f] plus de croissance, [advancement] [a step further] The euro must be [∏.d] an asset or [.f] a springboard for [TT.f] more growth, 210 a montré qu’elle était capable [TT.f] de maîtriser le développement de ses territoires [to limit the progression] has shown that it was capable [TT.f] of mastering the development of its territories 211 vous n’avez pas le droit [L uT.fl] d’accorder [.fl] ces aides trop importantes [to limit the aid] [continuous aid] you don’t have the right [L uT.fl] to agree to [.fl] this aid [that is] too much Now let us move on to the explanatory synthesis presented in Table 15. In the first two columns, the polysemous elements inherent to the movement [.f] and the configuration [T] have been extracted. Reading these line by line allows us to understand their resulting combination [T.f].
 Elements of meaning in gesture
The same elements of meaning produce different semantic combinations. For instance, the elements of meaning ‘progression’ and ‘limit’, combine to ‘go a step further’ (Example 209) and ‘limit a progression’ (Example 210). The gesture actually offers a wealth of multiple and even contradictory senses since the action of the fingers in this configuration is ambivalent. Is it their backs or their inner surfaces which act? In the first case, the backs of the fingers push forwards and cause an advancement (Example 209) whereas in the second case, inversely, the inner surface of the fingers gives resistence to movement and stops progression, thus creating an obstacle to progession (Example 210) or stopping a process. Moreover, the progression signified by the movement is made on the sagittal axis, which represents either a temporal axis (T), ‘progression towards the future’, or a scale of values (V), ‘progression towards an advantage’ (see Table 15, ‘progression T’ versus ‘progression V’). A remark concerning gestural sequencing must be made here. Comparing gestures and their verbal context allows us to differentiate between the semantic relevance of a gestural element and its physical characteristics that are due to the physical ease of performing it during gestural sequencing (see Chapter 6, The choice of variant). Let us look again at Examples 209 and 210; they present a symmetrical gesture [TT]. In the first case, the symmetrical gesture follows another symmetrical gesture in the Frame configuration. Only its transformation into the Right Angle configuration is relevant in order to represent the step further. In contrast, in the second case, what is relevant is the doubling of the surface offering more resistance to the progression in order to ‘master the development’ better. Table 15.╇ The polysemous polysign gesture Movement [.f]
Configuration [T]
Movement & Configuration Example [T.f]
progression T* progression T progression T progression V* progression T progression V departure from progression V progression V towards someone
boundary T initial boundary T final boundary T final boundary T stop-decision stop-decision stop-decision limit, degree limit, brake limit
next Saturday from a point in time outcome evolving solution future decision positive decision depart from the law improvement mastery of the development limitation of aid
202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211
[.f] Forwards; [T] Right Angle configuration *V refers to a scale of values; T refers to the temporal axis.
To conclude, the multiplicity of a polysemous gesture’s contextual meanings is explained by semantic derivation and/or possibly by the presence of different
Chapter 7.╇ One gesture represents different notions 
analogical links. These underpin the different gestural signs which account for its range of alternative meanings, and they are revealed by analysing the gesture’s different contexts of use. We have examined several examples of semantic derivation. Firstly, it was demonstrated how the numerous contextual meanings of Palm(s) Forwards are derived from the core sign of self-protection (Examples 153–162). Moreover, the fact that attenuation in the degree of protection on the physical level is paralleled on the semantic level confirms the value of the analogical link (Examples 163–169, Figure 50). Secondly, we saw how an aggression can be represented by the fist punch (Examples 170–172), and how the gesture’s meaning changes according to the context and the identities of the aggressor and the aggressed (Table 12). Thirdly, the diversity of the contextual meanings of the head shake (negation versus positive appreciation – certainty – agreement) and the Palm(s) Forwards (opposition versus perfection – certainty – agreement) is explained via implied double negation that transforms a refusal from a ‘no’ into a ‘yes’ (Examples 158, 162, 173–176, Table 13). The plural motivation of the polysemous gesture was demonstrated thanks to the multiplicity of the contextual meanings of the transverse movement of the Level Hand (Examples 177–191). A comparison of the meanings found in the corpora revealed five different analogical links, and in addition some of these links are subject to semantic derivation (see Figure 53). The combination of the two explanatory principles – plural motivation and semantic derivation – thus generates an increase in the contextual meanings of the polysemous gesture which can only express one sign at a time. In contrast, the polysign gesture expresses several signs at once. A variety of examples showed that not just one gesture but also one of its components can be bireferential (Figure 54). A gesture in which at least two components are relevant can thus be multireferential. It was also stated how the ‘complex’ gesture differs from the polysign gesture: it requires a modification on the physical level to allow the Â�representation of two gestural signs to be synthesized without modifying their respective analogical links (Figure 55). Finally, it was shown how a polysign gesture can be polysemous: it is sufficient for each of the gestural signs it comprises to be the object of semantic derivation in order to obtain a different contextual meaning on each occasion of use and to increase the number of its possible contextual meanings (Table 15). The topic of the next chapter is the analogical link between the physical aspect of a gesture and its meaning. This will be discussed with reference to the results of the analyses regarding the physical diversity (Chapter 6) and the semantic diversity (Chapter 7) of this relation.
chapter 8
The analogical links between gestures and notions So far in Part III we have focused on how a given notion can be expressed by different gestures (see Chapter 6 regarding the analysis of physical diversity), and then on how a given gesture can express different notions (see Chapter 7 regarding the analysis of semantic diversity). We have seen that the natural analogical link established between the physical aspect of a gesture and its meaning is deduced from the physical element common to the different gestures that may be used to express the same idea. In this chapter we shall analyse in depth how an analogical link underlies each of the gestural signs one that have been observed by taking the perspective of physical or semantic diversity. Finding the analogical link between a gesture and its meaning is easy when the meaning is readily apparent in the action performed by the gesture. To demonstrate this, gesture variants of physical refusal will be examined (The semantics of physical refusal). These may express physical refusal actively or passively by reproducing different reflexes, for example, rejection, self-protection, evasion, and recoiling. Thus the analogical links underlying the gestural signs derived from different modes of physical refusal will be presented in a structured manner. How one identifies analogical links in more complex cases is the topic of the next section (Identifying an analogical link). In the case of a polysemous gesture, for each notion that it expresses, one has to find the analogical link based on the physical element common to the gesture variants of the notion in question. The process is repeated until all the analogical links corresponding to all the notions expressed by the gesture have been identified. The projection of the fist serves as an example for this kind of analysis (Elucidating a polysemy by comparing gesture variants: the projection of the fist). In principle, there is a different analogical link for each of the notions expressed by a polysemous gesture, i.e. there is a specific link for each notion. However, one finds instances in which each of the notions expressed by a polysemous gesture conveys a semantic nuance. The gesture is thus said to express a semantic variant of a notion. Would this mean that the nuance depends on another analogical link, i.e. the semantic variant then contains two links: a main analogical link representing the common notion and a secondary link representing a second notion that adds a
 Elements of meaning in gesture
shade of meaning? Indeed, one observes combinations of analogical links resulting in semantic variants that function like polysigns and we shall examine examples of these (The semantic nuancing of a variant due to the gesture’s polysemy: Concrete designation; Restriction). We shall also see how this possibility of expressive modulation allows the speaker to select a gesture variant to suit a situation (The correspondence between the analogical link and a variant’s use: the case of negation). Having identified the different elements of the symbolic ‘Meccano set’ that Â�analogical links establish, one can observe at leisure the constructions obtained by the association of different elements (The analogical links and their symbolic associations). We shall see how a polysemous gesture can become a polysign in a given situation (Is the polysemous gesture a polysign?). Playing the symbolic construction game produces curious results because either a kinesic ensemble (a facial expression coupled with a manual gesture), or a kinesic unit (gesture), or a kinesic subunit (gestural component) can contain one or more analogical links! This symbolic construction game of associating analogical links enables one to understand the particular case of the complex gesture. It also enables one to explain the fact that a polysemous gesture can function as a polysign or that a polysign can be polysemous. First of all, however, it would be useful to have a general view of how the discovery of the analogical link can increase our understanding of the gestural system. A detailed analysis of gestures of refusal will provide this view: we shall see that, whether it is a matter of expressing attitudes or ideas, a whole spectrum of gestural expression is derived from different reflexes of refusal.
1.â•… The semantics of physical refusal A corpus of gestures that express physical refusal was initially established by considering emblems which can be used by themselves without their associated verbal cliché, such as Que dalle! (Nothing!) and Faire ceinture (To tighten one’s belt), and by associating ideas on both the physical level, for example, looking at the possible attitudes or feelings evoked by a lip-pout (sulkiness, disgust, doubt, or mediocrity) and on the semantic level (disgust-contempt, or doubt-scepticism-ignorance). These data were then augmented by observations of everyday life situations, by systematically gathering examples from television debates, and finally by complementing these with examples from cartoons. The latter have the advantage of presenting a direct relation between the gesture depicted in the drawing and meaning given in the accompanying written expressions and attesting their cultural character. The study presented below draws upon previously published work (Calbris 1990: 154–161) that has been enriched by examples taken from additional cartoons and video documents.
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
To express disgust with a grimace; to defend oneself from something with a Palm Forwards; to refuse to help with a toss of the hand over the shoulder; to turn down an invitation with a Palm Forwards; to correct a mistake with a raised index finger; to deny something with a lateral head shake: what all these physical attitudes and gestures have in common is that they are all gesture variants of refusal or rejection. By comparing and contrasting these gestures and facial expressions one obtains explanatory indications of how they could have arisen, which leads one to the following ‘Â�psycho-logical’ interpretation: people quite naturally mime and transfer to the psychological domain the physical rejection of an annoyance, whether it be in front of them, on them, or in them, and whether the refusal be active or passive (Calbris 1985b). Making the Â�distinction between active and passive refusal allows one to sort gestural signs into those derived from reflexes of rejection, self-protection, and avoidance respectively. There now follows a selection of the examples observed in the data which will lead us to this perspective.
1.1â•… Active refusal 1.1.1â•… Rejecting an object in front of oneself One gets rid of an object in front of oneself by moving it in various directions, like someone would make his way through a jungle: – by pushing it further away, with the fingers projected outwards (several times)*: 212 It is a way of freeing oneself: C’était pas à moi de faire quoi que ce soit, *à lui de se débrouiller. It wasn’t up to me to do anything, *he had to manage on his own. Des problèmes, *je t’expliquerai Problems, *I’ll explain later (put off the problems until later). – by pushing it aside, in two ways, with the forearm or the palm: The right forearm clears a space in front of oneself by sweeping across to the left*: 213 *Parce qu’il faudrait faire table rase de ce qui avait été fait en 80 et que cela me gênait *Because we’d have to wipe the slate clean of what had been done in 1980 and because that annoyed me An engineer explains to a professor that he is afraid that the school where they work will be closed down: Dès que les élèves seront partis, *ce sera le coup de balai. As soon as the pupils are gone, *there’ll be a clear-out (lit. a blow of the sweeping brush).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Figure 57 shows a left-hander saying: C’est trop tard, Monsieur, le gouvernement et le patronat l’ont compris. Ils Â�abandonnent les universités à ceux qui les ont clochardisés.1 *Bon débarras! It’s too late, sir, the government and the employers have understood. They’re abandoning the universities to those who have led them into degradation. *Good riddance.
WOLINSKI C’est dur d’être patron: 28 Figure 57.╇ Pushing aside
The right Rigid Hand pushes to the right* the problem to be ‘put aside’: 214 At a union meeting, a teacher declares: Ça, *c’est une autre affaire. That, *that’s another matter. In 1981, the presidential candidate explains: Sauf quelques mesures mécaniques, *subalternes Except for some mechanical measures, *subsidiary2 – by tossing it to the ground 215 The fingers are raised then ‘dropped’ from the wrist* in a sign of Â�capitulation. This is what the following speaker does while explaining that he is giving up looking for a present for his granddaughter because the amount of money his daughter wants him to spend on it is insufficient to find anything suitable: Au dessous de sept francs elle voulait, *il faudra laisser tomber .â•… The verb ‘clochardiser’ is derived from the noun ‘clochard’ meaning someone who has chosen to live on the margins of society as a beggar. The sense here is figurative. .â•… English word order: ‘Except for some subsidiary mechanical measures.’
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
Less than seven francs she wanted [me to spend], *I’ll have to forget it (lit. let it drop) This gesture is often accompanied by a grimace of contempt and a turning away of the head. Waving the hand forcefully down towards the ground is a more energetic sign of rejection. It is also a way of stopping someone who is prattling on too long or making you laugh too much: Arrêêête! (St-o-o-op!) (see Figure 58).
© 2009 MARCEL GOTLIB – DARGAUD BENELUX Rubrique-à-brac 4: 18 Figure 58.╇ Tossing to the ground
– by throwing it behind oneself, in two ways, via a movement upwards or sideways (see Figure 59). The first movement expresses an emphatic rejection, while the second expresses an unassuming one: The forearm moves upwards to enable the palm to reject something by throwing it behind oneself, over the shoulder*: 216 A lawyer during a television debate states his opinion: S’il ne s’engage pas, *qu’il refuse le dossier (If he is not committed, *he should refuse the case). – A teacher refuses to fill in for a colleague: Oh, *j’ai autre chose à foutre (Oh, *I’ve got better things to do). With the arm bent and the forearm positioned at waist or chest level, the palm facing upwards rejects something behind oneself, via a rapid wrist rotation sideways*. At the end of the movement, the fingers are bent at right angles to the palm (Right Angle configuration).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
217 A woman decides to stop taking certain medication: C’est le seul que je Â�continue, le reste…* (It’s the only one I’m still taking, the others…*). – A filing clerk who is fed up with her boss complains: Le style très tatillon, *y en a marre (The very pernickety style, *I’m sick and tired of it).
1. Upwards
2. Sideways
Figure 59.╇ Throwing behind oneself (ZAÜ in Calbris & Montredon 1986: 120)
1.1.2â•… Removing an object from oneself If the annoying object is situated on oneself, one gets rid of it: –by shrugging one’s shoulder(s) Note that the same movement may correspond to different intentions: (1) a Â�shoulder may be raised to signify exclamation; (2) it may be raised so that it can be subsequently dropped to signify powerlessness; (3) it may also be raised to get rid of something insignificant and signify offhandedness. A shoulder shrug* is Â�traditionally associated with a blasé attitude ‘Bof!’ (So what!), with indifference ‘Je m’en fiche!’ (I don’t give a damn!), or with offhandedness ‘Tant pis!’ (Too bad!). It symbolizes a light burden that is either uninteresting or has become cumbersome and that one gets rid of by jerking the shoulder. Here are some examples of the third attitude: 218 A 60-year-old woman recommends an offhand rejection: Je lui dis, *faut pas faire attention (I told him, *don’t pay any attention). – A 50-year-old woman chooses to be offhand: Ils sont pas là, *on peut dire ce qu’on pense! (They’re not here, *we can say what we think!). – A professor of management studies indicates a point of view: C’est pas connaître la rédaction administrative, *on s’en fout. (That’s ignoring administrative regulations, *one doesn’t give a damn. (video 50) In all these cases, the shoulder shrug is synonymous with ‘it doesn’t matter’).
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
– by rubbing the palms The palms are brushed against each other in two downward movements* as if one wants to remove dust off each palm after finishing a manual job (see Figure 60). A sign of ceasing, of ending, this gesture is associated with the French expression ‘N, i, ni, fini!’, which is synonymous with ‘finished’ or ‘good riddance!’ 219 Ben, *je crois que c’est fini… Hmm, *I think that it’s finished… It often complements an utterance, or substitutes for one: J’estime que j’ai fait tout ce que je devais là dessus: * As far as I’m concerned, I’ve done everything I was supposed to on this: *, Â�concludes a draftsman.
Figure 60.╇ Removing an object from oneself (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›117)
1.2â•… Passive refusal 1.2.1â•… The reflexes of rejection If the bothersome object is inside oneself, one expulses it in a euphemistic way by reproducing physiological reactions that are reflexes of rejection: 1.2.1.1â•… Vomit reflex.â•… The grimace* derived from the vomit reflex corresponds to moral disgust (see Figure 61.1): 220 *C’est répugnant *That’s revolting
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Faced with a television programme that differs from what she was expecting, a woman’s reaction sketched in Figure 61.1 is a mimetic expression of blasé disgust: wrinkled nose pulling up the upper lip, very marked furrow from the nose to the corners of the mouth, jaw pulled down and contracted chin muscle turning down the corners of the lips. Frequently the upper teeth are also exposed before opening the mouth to sketch the reflex of vomiting. Attenuated, the expression becomes a sign of contempt (see Figure 61.2). This thin-lipped attitude, often associated with ‘eyeing someone up and down’, is sometimes supplemented by a slight nasal exhalation which seems to me to symbolize the rejection of the insignificant, depreciated element.
1. Blasé disgust
2. Contempt
Figure 61.╇ Rejection of an object inside oneself
1.2.1.2â•… Expulsion of gas.â•… In order to signify ‘nothing but hot air’ (depreciation) or ‘nothing’ (ignorance), French people mime the expulsion of stomach or intestinal gas that equates with ‘nothing substantial’. The expulsion of stomach gas, i.e. belching, is represented by loudly deflating the cheek puffed up with air* (see Figure 62.1): 221 Mais c’est bidon, ça marche un coup sur deux *. – Tu parles, *que du vent, ça vaut pas un clou. But it’s phoney, half the time it doesn’t work *. – You must be joking, *it’s just hot air, it’s a dead loss. Here are some gesture variants. Using the index finger(s) and middle finger(s) to deflate the cheek(s), either together or separately, means ‘Ça ne vaut pas tripette’ (It’s not worth anything) or ‘C’est du bidon’ (It’s phoney). The origin of the latter locution is in the meaning of ‘bidon’ (belly) applied to a piece of cloth placed over merchandise to create a voluminous effect with the intention of tricking merchants into thinking that there were more goods underneath it than there actually were (Rey & Chantreau 1979: 84). The representation of Â�deflating a belly full of gas signifying lack of quantity is reapplied to signify lack of quality. Thus a young girl asks her boyfriend for his opinion about the musical performance of her friends; he inflates his cheek, abruptly deflates it by poking it with the index and middle fingers
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
joined together, and then makes a rather negative comment. Another Â�adolescent gives a verbal critique of a text and concludes by pressing his index fingers into his cheeks to deflate them. The expulsion of intestinal gas is analogically represented at the other end of the Â�digestive tube by a ‘mouth fart’*, i.e. a noisy projection of the lower lip (see Figure 62.2), *Putt (Pff): 222 This lip noise, highly unpleasant and vulgar to foreign ears, is quite Â�common and may even be heard during literary programmes on Â�television: Minable, bigleux, *putt, ça va pas loin tout ça. (Pathetic, short-sighted, *pff, none of that goes very far.). – A writer notes: Comme dit Céline, si tu ne mets pas ta peau sur la page, *putt, tu n’écris pas. (As Celine says, if you’re not putting your hide on the page, *pff, you’re not writing.). – And a film-maker remarks: *Putt, on m’a laissé complètement tomber. (*Pff, they dropped me completely.) This representation of nothing is also appropriately applied to situations in which ignorance is expressed. Concerning Savonarola, Francoise Sagan admits: Mais qu’il ait brûlé la bibliothèque du forum, *putt, je ne le savais pas. (But that he set fire to the Forum library, *pff, I didn’t know that.). – A professor of Â�management studies asks himself in vain: Qu’est-ce qu’on fait? *Putt. (What does one do? *Pff) (video 51). Native speakers are not conscious of the motivation of this common, widely used sign. Why do they jut out their lip and make this noise? The mouth is analogically associated with the anus, the other end of the Â�digestive tract, or with the vagina, another orifice ringed with lips (Fónagy 1970).
1. Depreciation: That’s worthless
2. Ignorance: I have no idea
Figure 62.╇ Mimed expulsion through the mouth (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986: 20, 78)
Mimed expulsions of digestive gas through the mouth have very specific Â�meanings: negative appreciation, incomprehension, or ignorance. The grimace of Â�disgust is equivalent to ‘That’s very bad’. Deflating the cheek is equivalent to ‘That’s nothing, that’s worthless’. The mouth fart is equivalent to ‘I don’t know’. This is derived from the biological fact that the mouth appreciates flavour, tastes the value of the object,
 Elements of meaning in gesture
and enables one to recognize whether it is good or bad. Consequently, what goes into the mouth is assimilated through it or rejected from it. The two modes of assimilation that shape the body and the mind are drawn together here: the digestive and intellectual assimilation of nourishing substances that shape the person and the personality respectively. Moreover, the mouth is the human child’s first instrument of cognition. Knowledge is itself a cerebral possession, a sum of intellectual objects assimilated by the body. Ignorance, its opposite, is signified by emptiness inside the body. According to the same principle, something that ought to possess a worthy quality but has no value is seen as a container that deflates.
1.2.2â•… The reflexes of self-protection Here are some other expressions of refusal that are always imitations of reflexes. Raising the forearms in front of oneself to block or push something away is a basic reflex of self-protection (Darwin 1872). With a little variation it becomes a sign of self-protection, of defence, of opposition, etc. On the one hand, the symbolic transfer from the physical level to the psychological level implies a generalization on the semantic level: repulsion > repugnance; self-protection > refusal of responsibility; stop > end; refusal > opposition > objection; restriction; and negative implication. On the other hand, it is possible to modify the gesture’s meaning by scaling it down on the physical level: the forearms may be substituted by both hands, one hand, an index finger, or a thumb (see Chapter 7, Figure 50). 223 Repulsion is signified by pushing the Palm Forwards (PF)*. It is in this way that in Figure 63 a monk protects himself from a woman’s bared breasts, and that a filing clerk, in real life, repels an abhorrent prospect: …avec le risque de redevenir simple secrétaire, ça *pour rien au monde! (…with the risk of going back to being a simple secretary, that *not for anything in the world!) 224 Two PFs raised in front of oneself** show a clear concern for self-protection in refusing to take responsibility. It is in this way that an ethnologist wisely Â�concludes: Voilà, tout est là, c’est tout ce que je dis, **c’est tout. There you are, it’s all there, that’s all I’m going to say, **that’s all. 225 When the risk is smaller, the speaker only raises one PF in front of himself*. He is not or no longer concerned. He is talking about a third party or about a past event. Indeed, it is in this way that a receptionist facing a colleague mimes the self-protective action that a third person should consider: Je vais te dire, euh… *elle va prendre un coup. I’ll tell you, er…, *she’s going to take a knock. The examples of the hand raised in a sign of opposition, of objection, of refusal, or of negation are innumerable. The gesture quite often appears in advertisements and comic strips:
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
*Alors là…attention! Je ne suis pas tout à fait d’accord – Ah ah! c’est Â�intéressant! *Hey there… careful! I don’t completely agree – Ah ah! that’s interesting! (see Figure 64).
© 2009 CLAIRE BRETECHER – DARGAUD BENELUX La vie passionnée de Thérèse d’Avila: 11 Figure 63.╇ Self-protection: repulsion
© 2009 CLAIRE BRETECHER – DARGAUD BENELUX Salades de saison: 8 Figure 64.╇ Self-protection: refusal
 Elements of meaning in gesture
226 The negative implication Ça!… (lit. That!…) is a typically French elliptic expression accompanied by a PF with the chin lifted forwards and raised eyebrows. This kinetic ensemble of upward movements of the hand, chin and eyebrows is ‘suspended’ for a moment that coincides with the glottal stop. The raised palm is generally concave* as if the negative implication *Ça!… were contained inside it. This very conventional gesture is often supplemented by a facial expression indicating a negative attitude (see Figure 65). The eyebrows raised in a sign of Â�exclamation and performed concurrently with the PF add a negative Â�connotation to a range of elliptic verbal expressions. The eyes are lifted Â�upwards to denigrate someone, *Avec lui!… (*With him!…; gesturally implied Â�meaning: ‘you have to be prepared for anything’). The lower lip is jutted out in a sign of ignorance, *Ça!… je sais pas (*That!… I don’t know). All these different Â�gestural-facial expressions can substitute for speech.
CLAUDE LAPOINTE Oh là là! Expression intonative et mimique (Calbris & Montredon 1976) Figure 65.╇ Self-protection: negative implication
227 In a general way, the raised PF stops something or requests a stop.
Similarly, substituting the thumb* for the hand requests a momentary stop in a �conflict, *Pouce! (lit. *Thumb!; see Figure 66).
228 The obstacle that the PF constitutes can be made smaller. Substituting for the hand, the raised index finger facing forwards* represents a partial Â�opposition, i.e. a restriction. It contradicts in order to rectify: *Seulement, il y a un hic. *Only, there’s a snag (see Figure 67).
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
© 2009 MARCEL GOTLIB – DARGAUD BENELUX Rubrique à brac 4: 78 Figure 66.╇ Self-protection: stop
JEAN CHAKIR Tracassin: 11 Figure 67.╇ Self-protection: restriction
 Elements of meaning in gesture
The self-protection reflex is not only manual; it is also facial, manifesting itself in the eyes and the mouth. In the eyes. In excessively strong light one squints and frowns. 229 Miming the reflex of tightly closing one’s eyes and accompanying it with a Â�grimace and a wrinkling of the nose* signifies any kind of displeasure: *Quoi, encore des profs! (video 52) *What, more teachers! It is also a sign of disapproving refusal. For example, a child teases his friend who is about to go into hospital, but with a frown* the latter rejects his friend’s interpretation of his swollen red eyes: – Dis donc, t’as pleuré? – *T’es loufe, c’est de la conjonctivite. – Hey, have you been crying? – *You’re crazy, I’ve got conjunctivitis. This academic makes the same facial expression: Non, l’histoire n’est pas une *caravane de chameaux! (video 53) No, history is not a *(lit.) caravan of camels! (meaning ‘a long, peaceful, Â�predictable sequence of similar elements advancing immutably through time). In the mouth and the eyes. The fact that doubt and reprobation, i.e. intellectual and affective refusal respectively, are expressed by a frown and projecting pursed lips (see Figure 68) suggests that this type of pout is equivalent to pushing the palm outwards. In fact, the lips are projected for various physical reasons: to kiss, to snap up and seize, or to reject. And one can transpose acts of pushing away, taking, or touching to the mouth by projecting the lips forwards. Here are some examples:
Figure 68.╇ Self-protection: the pout of doubt (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986:â•›65)
230 In a detective film on television, a police inspector is at a suspect’s home and wants to interrogate him, but the suspect ironically offers to accompany him to the door. The inspector, vexed because he has not obtained any new Â�information, declines the offer with a pout* of refusal: *C’est tout à fait superflu (*That’s entirely unnecessary). – A journalist is interviewing the general Â�secretary of a trade union: Alors avertissement? (So it’s a warning?). The union Â�representative refuses this term with a pout. So the journalist corrects himself immediately: Ou mise en garde? (Or a vigilant measure?)
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
1.2.3â•… The reflex of evasion The reflex of evasion is frequent and frequently reproduced. A slap in the face or a fist punch, a sand storm, a heavy burst of rain, a pestilent smell – one evades aggression directed at the face and protects the facial sensory organs, i.e. the mouth, nose, and eyes, by rapidly turning the head away. The baby who is no longer hungry rejects the mother’s breast or the food offered on a spoon by energetically turning the head to one side (Morris 1977: 50). This reaction is complemented by others, such as closing the eyes or miming the act of vomiting. 231 The most frequent evasive reaction is to turn the head away and close the eyes at the same time*. The object to be evaded may be an idea: Un débile mental qui a une sexualité, *ça semble repoussant. A mental imbecile who has sexuality, *that seems repulsive. 232 It is also possible to move away by throwing the head back and to the side*: – Et vous faîtes de la gymnastique? – *Oh, pas moi. – And you do gymnastics? – *Oh, not me. exclaims an old lady interviewed about a senior citizens’ club. Other signs of refusal, such as a tongue click, a shrug, or a sigh, often occur simultaneously with a head-turn. 233 The expression of disgusted refusal cumulates the various movements for Â�refusing food: turning the head away to avoid it, while grimacing as if to vomit it, and sometimes using the PF to push it away, making the repulsion concrete. In short, according to the degree of disgust felt or to be expressed, one moves away, or pushes away, or both simultaneously. For example, the cumulative variant of refusal we saw in Chapter 1 (see Figure 8) appears in Figure 69, in which the little man is in total agreement about the Â�metaphor used by the big man, and he absolutely refuses to contemplate such a Â�dreadful situation: – Sinon, mon cher Monsieur, c’est le bordel! – *Il n’y a pas d’autre mot. – Otherwise, my dear sir, (lit.) it’s the brothel! (meaning ‘an absolute mess’). – *(= what a horror!) There’s no other word for it.
WOLINSKI On ne connaît pas notre bonheur: 37 Figure 69.╇ The reflex of evasion
The analysis of audio-visual documentation enables one to bring to light fleeting �phenomena to which one does not generally pay attention, such as the simultaneity
 Elements of meaning in gesture
of a reaction of evasion and of self-correction exemplified below. The data show four speakers – a renowned physicist, a teacher, a young male student at a ‘Grande École’, i.e. an elite academic institution, and a high-ranking left-wing politician – all correcting either a lexical or a syntactic error in exactly the same manner. All four turn their heads away very rapidly while closing their eyes* immediately after their lapsus linguae: 234 Puis quand je me suis dit: si je proposais une expérience pour la matière noire, *pour la matière cachée (video 54). – les tâches que vous ferez, *que vous feriez journellement (video 55). – Donc si nous voulons avoir des titres, *des diplômes, pardon (video 56). – Il faudrait, *il n’aurait pas fallu, je crois, que l’évaluation soit trop connotée ‘deuxième gauche’. (video 57) Then when I said to myself: if I were to propose an experiment for dark Â�matter, *for hidden matter. – the tasks that you will do, *that you would do every day. – Therefore if we want to have titles, *diplomas, excuse me. – It would require, *it would not have required, I believe, that the evaluation be over Â�connoted ‘second left’. It looks as if the speaker is rejecting his utterance, is physically evading his own emission, by moving away from the object that has just come out of his mouth and that he does not want to see: ‘that does not come from me’. We know that a baby who refuses food turns his head to one side. If one insists, he turns his head to the other side. The lateral head shake as a sign of refusal or denial seems clearly inspired by this instinctive movement. Here again, the head shake is often complemented by other signs of refusal, such as a pout, a sigh, or a frown, as in the following three examples: 235 Listening to a Parisian colleague, a professor from Toulouse shakes his head while pouting to indicate his disagreement without saying anything. – In the Metro, a teacher is correcting the work of a student, probably a poor one: he exhales loudly while shaking his head. – A retired man is talking about the theme of the Japanese film The Ballad of Narayama to a young girl who begins to shake her head, to frown, and to grimace*. Her expression of disgusted refusal anticipates the verbal reaction: *, Ça doit être horrible! (That must be horrible!). There is another way of protecting one’s facial sensory organs: one can stick one’s fingers in one’s ears in order not to hear, but this action is not reproduced as a gesture in France. Instead, a person would mimetically represent his refusal to watch a catastrophe by hiding his eyes with one hand and simultaneously lifting his head upwards*, probably to call upon heaven to bear witness to the misfortune.
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
236 A young man does this while recalling a very rainy weekend: Le pain trempait dans la flotte, *oh! (The bread was soaking in the rain, *oh). – In Figure 70 the man does the same while crying out *Oh! Nooon … in Â�response to hearing his Â�interlocutor say “J’ai oublié d’éteindre la bougie” (I forgot to blow out the candle).
CAUVIN Pauvre Lampil: 38 Figure 70.╇ Refusal to watch a catastrophe
1.2.4â•… The reflex of recoiling The reflex of recoiling is another type of avoidance that is reproduced as a gesture: with a stiff neck, the head and torso make a recoiling movement* and thus substitute for the whole body that arches backwards (see Chapter 1, Figure 8.3). 237 The speaker, physically shocked by the proposition she has heard, Â�contradicts her interlocutor by arching backwards*: *Mais si, il travaillait! (*But on the Â�contrary, he was working!). – This movement is also made by a rhetorically skilled academic who puts herself in the position of someone else, Adam Smith, whose remarks she is relating: Est-ce que c’est cet Â�apprentissage qui est la cause? – *Non!, dit Adam Smith. (Is it this Â�apprenticeship that is the reason? – *No!, says Adam Smith). (video 58). – The humorist Bretecher makes his heroine react to an amorous invitation in the same way (see Figure 71.1). Her posture of refusal is confirmed by the self-protective gesture, both Palms Forwards, as she replies: *Non to the incongruous invitation, “Je Â�pensais que ça enlèverait la spontanéité… Alors, c’est d’accord?” (I thought that it would kill the Â�spontaneity… So, how about it?). One observes the head tipped forwards or the eyelids lowered as signs of Â�acquiescence, greeting, or exaggerated politeness. Both evoke the movement of the torso or the whole body adopting the posture of submission from which these signs are derived (Morris 1977: 142–145). Inversely, can the act of arching the body backwards, of Â�‘rising up against’ the interlocutor, be transposed to the face? This seems to be the
 Elements of meaning in gesture
case for the Greek ‘No’ (Papas 1972: 32), expressed by lifting the head backwards and Â�raising the eyebrows, movements which often coincide with an abrupt interruption of Â�vocalization (see Figure 71.2). These signs have been found in sketchy form in gestures that occur with the negative French ellipsis Ça!… indicated above. Indeed, a constant association between this kinesic ensemble and a glottal spasm, another physical symptom of refusal used as a sign, has been found in the corpora (Calbris & Montredon 1980).
© 2009 CLAIRE BRETECHER– DARGAUD BENELUX 1. Frustrés 5: 50
PAPAS 2. Grec éclair
Figure 71.╇ The reflex of recoiling
1.2.5â•… Weariness An indicator of fatigue, either physical or mental, loudly exhaling through relaxed lips* is a common sign of exasperation among French speakers: *Pouh: 238 A young woman refuses to describe an accident: *Pouh, j’aime pas parler de ça (*Pouh, I don’t like to talk about it). – A colleague refuses to participate in a reading panel: *Ouh *Pouh, pitié! (*Oh, *Pouh, for pity’s sake!). – A man explains: Je peux pas téléphoner parce que *pouh, elle y connaît rien (I can’t phone because *pouh, she doesn’t know anything about it). – Exasperated by his father’s incomprehension and unable to bear it anymore, the teenager in
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
Figure 72 leaves the room expelling air out of his puffed-up cheeks. His father concludes: “Je renonce à éduquer cette gamine” (I give up educating this kid).
Figure © 72.╇ Refusal through weariness – DARGAUD BENELUX Frustrés 2: 15 2009 CLAIRE BRETECHER
1.3â•… Semantic derivation in the expression of refusal The gestures that concretize the verbal clichés of deprivation Que dalle! (Not a damn thing!), Passer sous le nez (To pass under one’s nose), Se serrer la ceinture (To tighten one’s belt) (see Figure 73.1–3) may become expressions of failure or refusal in certain contexts by role reversal. Refusal expressed in this way represents the deprivation that someone else has to endure. One indicates to him: 1. that he will have que dalle, pas un sou, même pas ça! (not a damn thing, not a penny, not even that!) by flicking the thumbnail off an upper front tooth*:
*Rien, il m’a même pas dit bonjour. *Nothing, he didn’t even say hello to me.
2. that what he was hoping to obtain is going to passer sous le nez (lit. to pass under his nose, meaning ‘to slip through his fingers’) by sliding an index finger under the nose. 3. that he is going to have to serrer la ceinture (lit. to tighten his belt, meaning ‘to economize’). The transverse movement of the right hand, facing upwards, Â�performed at waist level, is a stylized representation of tightening a belt by one or two notches.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
1. Que dalle! Not a damn thing!
2. Passer sous le nez To pass under one's nose
3. Ceinture! Belt!
Figure 73.╇ The emblems of deprivation (ZAÜ in Calbris & Montredon 1986:↜100–102)
Furthermore, most gestures of derision are insolent or mocking refusals whose underlying obscenity rarely comes to the speaker’s mind. Such gestures include the forearm jerk, sticking out the tongue, and thumbing the nose (touching the tip of your nose with your thumb, palm open and fingers pointing upwards). They all offer various body parts as phallic substitutes: respectively, the forearm with a closed fist, the tongue, and the nose extended by the thumb. Note that the role of the stuck-out tongue as a phallic substitute is confirmed by its redundant occurrence with the forearm jerk or thumbing the nose*. This is how the humorist Wolinski draws President Giscard d’Estaing thumbing his nose to the French people at the end of his term of office: *Démerdez-vous (lit. *Get yourselves out of the shit, meaning ‘Sort out the problems yourselves’; see Figure 74.1). Lastly, the verbal expression ‘Mon oeil!’ (lit. my eye!) is a euphemism for ‘Mon cul!’ (lit. my ass!), the eye being one of the common designations for the anus (Â�Duneton 1978:↜221).3 If ‘Mon cul!’ is the favourite expression of refusal of Zazie, Queneau’s (1959) heroine, ‘Mon oeil!’ is more specifically an expression of refusal to believe, probably because the organ of vision also symbolizes knowledge. The French gesture of the index finger pulling the lower eyelid downwards* is a gestural sign of mistrust
.â•… De Jorio (2000: 237, translated by Kendon) describes the gesture of using the index finger to pull down the lower eyelid and, according to his account, although the Neapolitan meaning is similar to the French, his explanation of its origin is quite different. This is not surprising: the gesture is very polysemous, as attested by unpublished lists of emblems compiled during my seminars by students originating from the Mediterranean Basin and various Arab countries. Here, I reason within the linguistic-cultural framework of France, where the locution ‘Mon Oeil’ is the euphemistic equivalent to ‘Mon cul’, implying a metaphorical relation drawn between the two orifices in order to signify ‘mocking refusal’ in a familiar versus vulgar way.
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
or incredulity, synonym of ‘not to be believed’ and is equivalent to ‘Mon oeil!’.4 According to the context it can become a sign of incredulity, as Figure 74.2 shows: *Vous avez tué ma maman? (*You killed my mummy?) meaning ‘I don’t believe you killed my mummy’. Or it can become a sign of denial: ‘don’t believe it, it’s not true’, or a mocking refusal: ‘don’t believe it, don’t count on it’. VOUS AVEZ TUÉ MA MAMAN? JE NE VOUS CROIS PAS
GISCARD AUX FRANÇAIS EZ ERD DÉM US VO
1. WOLINSKI Giscard n’est pas drôle: 14
2. HUGOT Tous en scène, 1977
Figure 74.╇ Derision: mocking refusal
To conclude, it is to be expected that other cultures express refusal based on reflexes of self-protection and evasion. Perhaps, like the French, they too employ �gestural transfer from one semantic domain to another to express refusal by representing deprivation or insolent refusal by resorting to obscene gestures. Both hypotheses would require verification.
2.╅ Identifying an analogical link 2.1╅ Elucidating a polysemy by comparing gesture variants As a speech substitute, a lateral head shake is a sign of negation, but as a co-speech �gesture it is also a sign of approximation and of totality. The explanation for this
.â•… Cf. Calbris (1983: 614–615 & ill. 183.1–4), Calbris & Montredon (1986: 65, 118, 121).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
� polysemy was considered briefly in Chapter 1. Later, in Chapter 5, the method proposed for analysing the system of gestural signs brought to light the polysemy of gestures with the Frame configuration which move downwards. This method enabled us to identify and explain the analogical link of one of the meanings of the gesture, namely categorical character, by comparing all the gesture variants that express the notion of categorical character. These were found to be performed with one or both hands in the sagittal or the frontal plane, and what they all share in common is the lowering of the edge of the hand. It is this feature which conveys the incisive, decisive, categorical character of the person or event in question. The same method of analysis allows us to explain the polysemy of the following gesture.
2.1.1â•… The projection of the fist Creating samples of a gesture which are sorted according to its different meanings reveals its polysemy. For example, throwing a sharp fist punch with the forearm away from the stomach in the horizontal plane (see Figure 75) is an ambiguous gesture. It can be employed as speech substitute to signify a vengeful response: ‘Bien envoyé’ (Good shot), or ‘C’est bien fait’ (Got ‘em there). It often co-occurs with various Â�percussive onomatopoeic expressions: *Et vlan, *Et toc, *Et tac, *Et paf. By extension, it represents the strength of a reaction against any kind of entity whatsoever: 239 Ça m’a donné des forces *pour réagir. That gave me the strength *to react. In contrast, the gesture may be repeated (*r) or symmetric (**) to signify speed-powerforce or a maximum force equivalent to a superlative. Brusquely projected forwards in a straight line, the fist symbolizes the force of propulsion, speed, and power. Real-life examples show us that this power is applicable to all kinds of apparatus: hi-fi equipment, heaters, ventilators, buses, yachts, cars, etc.: 240 On a mis un temps record *en forçant. – *Elle fonce bien, ma voiture. – Ça marchait *r les ventilos. We made record time *by pushing it. – *It speeds along well, my car.– It was working *rthe ventilation. Widely applied, the notion of maximum power is used to express the superlative degree, as evidenced by the repeated* or symmetric** projection of the fist occurring with speech that refers to harsh lighting, intense cold, extremely salty water, or a superman: 241 *rde l’eau super salée. – Alors là, c’est un, **c’est un super commissaire. *rof extremely salty water (regarding an atoll). – Now then, he’s a, **he’s a great superintendent.
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
Figure 75.╇ An ambiguous fist punch (Zaü in Calbris 1990:↜167)
Although there is always the idea of strength in the configuration of the hand closed in a fist, the projection of the fist does not share the same motivation. The range of variants of the fist punch serves to indicate the analogical links it may establish (see Table 16). Let us use the distinction between single, repeated and symmetric movement to differentiate these variants in relation to their contexts of use. When the gesture occurs with the vengeful response ‘Et vlan, dans le baba!’ (And wham, (lit.) in the genitals!), the movement is always single and never symmetric. In contrast, there are variants that express the second meaning of speed-powerforce: the movement may be single, or (most frequently) repeated, or symmetric. Repeated, it suggests the power of propulsion one observes in the repeated movement of the piston of an engine. Performed symmetrically, the gesture becomes a more abstract sign expressing a maximum force that is doubled, due to the symmetry of the projection, as opposed to continuous, which a repetition of the projection would evoke. Table 16.╇ Projection of the fist: discovery of the analogical links due to variants Variants: Â�projection 1. Single projection
2. Single, repeated, or symmetric projection
Analogical links: Meanings:
Force (propulsive) of action Speed-Power-Force
Blow administered Vengeful Response
One possible objection to this dichotomous interpretation opposing Â�vengeful response and speed-power-force is that boxing implies the use of both fists and repeated blows. This is certainly true, but the allusion to boxing would imply Â�alternating Â�movements of the right and left fists, and in the case of delivering a vengeful response it is a matter of outdoing the adversary, of signifying victory by responding with one single decisive blow. On the symbolic level, a repetition would only translate the lack of power to triumph, or else sadistic determination. Moreover, the gesture’s two meanings confirm that the same physical axis – the sagittal axis – is used as two different symbolic axes: one going outwards from oneself when representing a blow striking an adversary; the other going from back to front when representing the force of action.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Let us go a step further. If we consider the examples given regarding the force of maximum action, we can see that the idea of pain-inflicting force is implied in this particular expression of the superlative. It hurts, whether it is a matter of harsh �lighting, intense cold, extremely salty water, or a police raid. Once again, the polysemous gesture becomes a polysign by cumulating analogical links: in one case, power, the force of maximum action (2nd meaning) causes pain just like the blow delivered (1st meaning); in the other, the blow dealt to the adversary (1st meaning) is a rapid action directed against him (2nd meaning). We can thus see that comparing the gesture variants of each of the notions expressed by the polysemous gesture allows us to discover the analogical link corresponding to each of the gestural signs it contains. The existence of two analogical links in the polysemous gesture allows us to complement or clarify the precise meaning of the each sign by studying how they influence each other. The possibility of two �co-existing analogical links explains the examples that follow in the next section.
2.2â•… The semantic nuancing of a variant due to the gesture’s polysemy Every French speaker has gesture variants at his disposal and selects one of them according to the situation, his interlocutors, and the semantic nuance that he wishes to convey. It is indeed useful to make people who are learning French aware of these semantic nuances that gestures convey (Calbris & Montredon 2001). If the selection of a gesture variant depends on the context, situational or semantic, then the nuance conveyed by the variant chosen is generally due to the polysemy of the gesture employed. This comes ‘endowed’ with one of its other meanings which becomes apparent when one compares variants of concrete designation as well as those of restriction.
2.2.1╅ Concrete designation The hand, index finger, thumb, and head can all be used to designate concrete �entities, but a different attitude may be conveyed depending on the choice of body part: in France, using the hand is considered ostentatious, polite, or denigrating; using the index finger is considered precise and imperative; using the thumb is considered casual and offhand; and using the head is considered hasty and sometimes provocative. Why is there this differentiation? Let us first of all look at the technical modalities of deixis, then at the nuances that may be conveyed and their underlying causes. In the case of concrete deictic gestures, pointing is performed in several ways, either by moving a body part (1), or by putting it into a position (2). 1. The pointing is done by moving the head or directing eye gaze to indicate a target, an object, or a person. For example, I address one of my interlocutors by performing a head movement. Or even by directing my gaze without moving my head, I prompt one of them to look at a particular person. Another possible
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
Â� movement found in other cultures is a projection of the lips, which generally occurs simultaneously with moving the head or directing eye gaze in the same direction. Lip-pointing is a very widespread deictic gesture (Wilkins 2003) that has been encountered among the Hopi of Northern Arizona in America, the San Blas Cuna of Panama (Sherzer 1972), in Africa, in Oceania, in Australia, and in South East Asia where, in particular, it has been studied in Laos by Enfield (2001). 2. The pointing is done by putting a body part into a position so that it acts like an arrow or an indicating board, i.e. respectively, the index finger or the hand is held in profile and oriented towards something (see Figure 76.1–2). The designated object is situated on the line extending from the positioned body part; it is its target. In certain cases, when the palm is facing upwards, the entity is not only designated but also presented or offered: voilà (there it is; take it) (see Figure 76.3). In France one introduces someone in this way, designates-offers a packet of cigarettes, a seat, or a space where someone can pass by. The oriented body part is like a serving tray (Calbris 2003b). For a comparative study of different kinds of manual pointing in relation to their appropriateness to the context – whether it be pragmatic, semantic, or discursive – the reader is referred to Kendon (2004a: 199–224).
1. Arrowed line
2. Arrowed panel
3. Arrowed serving tray
Figure 76.╇ Concrete designation
If the classical way to designate an object is to point the index finger in its direction, the polite way is to point at someone or something with the palm. The discrete equivalent is an orientation of the head or eye gaze. Pointing with the thumb or raising the chin towards someone or something concrete is felt to be (semi-aggressively) casual and offhand. Designating someone with the index finger is, at least in France, very informal or aggressive. These gesture variants of concrete designation are closely associated with semantic-pragmatic nuances because, moreover: –â•fi
the palm presents, offers, gives, and requests. As such, it conforms with polite designation. In a way, the palm offers something to the person designated by the fingertips.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
–â•fi –â•fi
the index finger orders and accuses. One reserves it for imperative, precise, and informal designation. the thumb, the strong digit, presses and erases. It is very easy to direct backwards and is used to signify challenge, failure, and refusal as shown in Chapter 6, which also gives insights into why designating with the thumb is casual and offhand (see The semantic contribution of the substitute).
Thus, every gestural designation is coloured by other meanings attached to the body part used. It is linked to the specific character, whether physical or symbolic, of that body part (Calbris 1990:↜128; 1993). In fact, in a given situation, a deictic gesture cumulates two analogical links underlying two gestural signs which mutually condition each other.
2.2.2â•… Restriction It is very interesting to discover the analogical links between the gesture variants and the semantic nuances of restriction associated with particular situations. We have already seen in Chapter 7 how restriction or partial objection was analogically represented by an obstacle (Palm Forwards), but in an attenuated way. Attenuation is achieved by adapting: the angle, by orienting the palm in an oblique plane (Gesture 1)*: 168 Est-ce que vous les rendez aussi dynamiques *au moins qu’ils l’étaient? (video 38) Do you make them just as dynamic *at least [as dynamic] as they were? the surface, by raising just one finger, the index finger facing forwards (Gesture 2)*: 169 On aboutit à quelque chose qui est aussi, *mais pas seulement politique. (video 39) One ends up with something which is also, *but not only political. Restriction is also signified by representing another point of view about Â�something by a lateral head tilt (Gesture 3)*, which modifies the angle of view: 30 … une nouveauté qui d’ailleurs tombait bien, *relativement … a novelty which by the way was convenient, *relatively. Here are some other real-life examples that make the same distinction, but in which the analysis reveals that the spontaneous choice of the variant best suited to a particular situation is linked to the gesture’s polysemy: Gesture 1. Palm Forwards lowered and oriented in an oblique plane*: 242 A presenter of a television news programme chooses the symmetric Â�variant**: Regardons la presse dans les capitales étrangères, **du moins
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
dans trois d’entre elles (Let’s look at the press in foreign capitals, **at least in three of them). – And a researcher performs the same gesture during a debate about Homo Â�sapiens: Il arrive avec une panoplie d’objets, **certes très rudimentaires (He Â�arrives with a splendid array of objects, **of course very rudimentary). In both cases, the speaker wards off a possible objection that someone might raise. It is a prudent restriction. Indeed, as we have seen above (see The Â�reflexes of self-protection), PF is essentially a sign of self-protection or (self)-defence with a very rich potential for semantic derivation. The range of its meanings includes the notion of restriction. It is therefore not Â�surprising that restriction expressed in this way can be coloured by a Â�nuance of self-protection. Gesture 2. Raised index finger facing forwards*: 243 Someone expresses a criticism and someone else corrects him immediately: – Ça lui arrive très souvent. – *Deux fois. – That happens to him very often. – *Two times. The index finger substitutes for the hand to signify a partial objection. Furthermore, as it is frequently used to underline an important point, it can express a restriction that adds precision to what is said. It is a corrective restriction. Gesture 3. Head tilt 244 A female journalist specialized in medical questions explains to the television viewers: Bientôt, il va y avoir une division cellulaire (Soon, there is going to be a cell division). But the professor of medicine accompanying her inclines his head to one side* while saying: *Pas tout de suite (*Not immediately). He almost apologizes for having to intervene; it is an amicable restriction. What can this impression of friendliness be attributed to? We know that the lateral head tilt generally accompanies attitudes of compassion, of Â�supplication (Please), of seduction, or of simple business etiquette. This sign of tenderness, regardless of whether the person performing it is giving or receiving tenderness, is yet another gestural relic (Morris 1977: 48). The head tilt has various meanings, including restriction (different angle of view) and tenderness (head leaning on a maternal shoulder), and it has the potential to nuance the former meaning with the latter by cumulating them. In sum, a gesture that can express different notions on different occasions of use has the potential to express them simultaneously: the context can activate more than one of its possible analogical links. Table 17 shows that the nuance conveyed by the variants we have studied (notion 1 nuanced by notion 2) is attributable to the gestures’ polysemy (notion 1 or notion 2).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Table 17.╇ Nuances of restriction due to the polysemy of each gesture Gesture:
Polysemous
Polysign
Notion 1
Notion 2
Notion 1 nuanced by notion 2
(Gesture 1) Palm inclined forwards contains:
restriction or Partial opposition (reduced angle) link 1
opposition → Self-protection
prudent restriction X concedes: rudimentary of course links1 and 2
(Gesture 2) Raised index finger facing forwards contains:
restriction or Partial opposition (reduced surface)
precision Indication
link 1
link 2
(Gesture 3) Head inclined laterally contains:
restriction Different point of view link 1
or
link 2
tenderness Head on the shoulder link 2
→
corrective restriction X corrects: two times links1 and 2
→
amicable restriction X apologizes: not immediately links1 and 2
2.3â•… Th e correspondence between the analogical link and a variant’s use: The case of negation Up to now, we have encountered most of the gesture variants that express refusal or negation dispersed across several chapters. Let us now consider them collectively. They include the head turning away, the lateral head shake, the torso moving backwards, and the Palm Forwards (see Chapter 1, One notion is represented by several gestures; Chapter 7, Confirmation of the analogical link: Gradational opposition; Chapter 8, The semantics of physical refusal). We have also considered the transverse movement of the Level Hand (see Chapter 7, The presence of several analogical links). These variants will now be compared with respect to both their forms and their specific meanings in order to bring to light their respective analogical links and to discover the correspondence between these and the semantic-pragmatic use of each variant. Figure 77 shows nine gesture variants that signify refusal-negation: by the head pulled backwards (1), turned away (2), or shaken (3); by a transverse movement of the Level Hand5 (4); by the Palm Forwards (5), the opposition thus signified is accentuated by a lateral movement (6), or a shaking movement (7); and finally, by the index finger facing forwards raised in a sign of correction (8), or shaken in a sign of prohibition that replaces speech (9).
.â•… This gesture variant is equivalent to Open Hand Prone (or ‘horizontal palm’ ZP) gestures facing horizontally downwards that Kendon (2004a: 255–264) describes.
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
Head
Level Hand
1
Palm Forwards
Index finger
5
8
Correction
pulled back 2
4
6
Lateral Movement turned away 3
7
9
Shaking Prohibition
shaken Refusal:
passive: Evasion
active: Suppression
passive: Gradational (self)-defence
Indication of opposition
Figure 77.╇ The gesture variants of refusal-negation
Let us reconsider the variants of refusal-negation sorted by the acting body part: In (1), the pulling back of the head* with the neck stiff, and that generally occurs with a backward movement of the torso, is a substitute for the whole body tensing and retreating in protest against an erroneous affirmation (see Chapter 1, Figure 8, “Mais non!”). Offended, the speaker reacts with a surprised movement backwards, unless he is expressing this reaction on behalf of a third party in a story he is telling: 237 Est-ce que c’est cet apprentissage qui est la cause? – *Non!, dit Adam Smith. Is it this apprenticeship that is the reason? – *No!, says Adam Smith. (video 58)
 Elements of meaning in gesture
In (2), the speaker turns his head away* so as not to smell, not to see, in reality or figuratively: 231 *Ca semble repoussant! *That seems repulsive! In (3), the repeated evasion from one side to the other became a lateral head shake*, the well-known emblem of negation in the Occident, but which may also accompany speech: 8 *Ça n’a jamais été un problème. (video 8) *That’s never been a problem. We know that variant (4) has an absolute character (see Chapter 7, The presence of several analogical links): 185 *Plus un sou. – Et depuis, *j’ai rien eu. *Not a penny more. – And since then, *I’ve had nothing. The transverse movement of the edge of the hand cuts through everything that is in front of oneself. The symmetric version which sweeps the entire horizon reinforces this absolute character: ‘There is really not the least little thing that remains, there is nothing left’. It expresses the notion of Â�nothingness, of nonentity: Rien! (Nothing!). In (5), (6) and (7) the Palm Forwards functions as an obstacle. In Chapter 7 we saw that the opposition signified by the Palm Forwards could be modulated (Confirmation of the analogical link: Gradational opposition). Let us recall: – that the static or dynamic opposition signified by both hands is semantically more marked than when just one hand is used (5): 154 Vous avez vu *comme j’ai été prudente (You saw *how prudent I was) 155 Je ne sais pas **je ne me prononce pas sur la peine de mort (I don’t know **I take no stance on the death penalty) – that the transverse movement of one* or both palms** correlates with verbal expressions of absolute character (6): 163 *jamais (*never) 164 **n’en parlons plus (**let’s say no more about it) – that shaking one* or both palms** always expresses a certain fear (7): 165 *je ne prends pas parti (*I’m not taking sides) 166 **surtout plus ça (**especially not that) Whether it is physically modulated or not, the negation expressed by the Palm Â� Forwards always has a defensive character; it opposes an assertion or warns about a contradiction.
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
The raised index finger facing forwards* (8) corrects:
*Ah non, pardon! (*Oh no, excuse me!).
Still with the palm facing forwards, shaking the index finger* (9) is often used as a speech substitute. For example, it can signify to the absent-minded or late customer peering through the shop window that we are shut! Generally, the gesture prohibits someone’s passage, action, or speech: *Non non non, dites pas ça. (*No no no, don’t say that). Quite frequently addressed to children, it is often accompanied by another sign of prohibition, the vocal one [th th] (tut tut). Now that the semantic and pragmatic particularity of each variant has been ascertained more precisely, let us review the different analogical links on which they are based. The lateral head shake (3) originates from a reflex of evasion, and the palm facing forwards (5) from a reflex of self-protection. These expressions derived from reflexes of evasion and self-protection correspond to the rejection of an assertion or an erroneous statement, i.e. an abstract object that someone puts forward, and signify ‘I reject your verbal proposition’. They are gestures of passive refusal that express ‘no thanks, I don’t want it’. The speaker protects himself and his body expresses his decision not to accept what is being offered him. The backward movement of the body, even a slight one of the torso or neck (video 58), expresses the reaction of surprise to an assertion that is considered extremely erroneous. In contrast, a transverse movement of the edge of the hand, variant (4), is far from passive. It represents a nonentity, ‘nothing’, by making a suppressive and total cut. It is the assertion that an entity does not exist and means ‘there is nothing’. The last two variants (8) and (9) performed with the index fingers are polysigns because they each contain two analogical links. The Palm Forwards opposes something, whereas the index finger attracts attention towards something. Whether it be for designating, ordering, accusing, or adding precision, the index finger derives its semanticism from its natural function of pointing. It is essentially deictic. Indeed, in (8), the index finger is a sign of correction that opposes (in the frontal plane) in order to add a precision (raised index finger). Lastly, the prohibition represented in (9) is like a threatening declaration to defend oneself considering the meaning of each one of its gestural components: –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi
the body part: the index finger pointing upwards is used as a deictic instrument that attracts attention towards something regarded as important; the movement: the index finger shaken in the sagittal plane is usually used as a threatening warning; the orientation: the palm oriented in the frontal plane is used as a means of defending oneself.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Shaking the raised index finger in the frontal plane is truly the threatening (shaking movement) declaration (raised index finger) of the defensive position (frontal plane) the speaker is adopting. Thus, by comparing the variants of negation on both the physical level and the semantic level one can ascertain the analogical links that explain the semantic choice made in the case of each variant.
3.â•… Analogical links and their symbolic associations 3.1â•… Is the polysemous gesture as a polysign? The analysis of a polysemous gesture may reveal that it can function as a polysign in a given context. In this case, one of its meanings is nuanced by one of the other meanings it has the potential to convey.
3.1.1â•… Determining the analogical link for each notion By way of example, let us reconsider the polysemy of the Level Hand making a transverse movement. We have encountered its numerous meanings in samples sorted according to certain key notions: flatness, directness, quantity-totality, stop-refusal, cutting (see Chapter 7. The presence of several analogical links: plural motivation; Figure 53). The transverse movement of the fingertips traces a straight line that represents directness and its numerous derivations, and by sweeping across the horizontal plane the flat palm covers everything in its path and thus conveys the idea of totality. These representations draw upon analogical links, some of which have already been identified in Chapter 7. The other links underlying the representations of stop-refusal and cutting have to be confirmed or clarified by comparing the gesture variants of each notion. We saw above that each of the nine gesture variants of refusal-negation (see Figure 77) presents a semantic nuance, and that the one expressed by the transverse movement of the Level Hand is ‘absolute character’. What about the variants of cutting? Is each one of them nuanced too? What is the nuance expressed by this polysemous gesture of the Level Hand? Furthermore, what is the physical feature common to the variants that can express the common notion? 3.1.2â•… Comparing the other variants that express each notion 3.1.2.1â•… The notion of stop-refusal and all its gestural and semantic variants.â•… The palm offers resistance to an opposing force; it stops a progression to which it is Â�perpendicular. What are the axes of progression and how do the types of Â�progression
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
that may be stopped on each axis differ? The positions of the palm-obstacle �stopping the different kinds of progressions are coded [a, b, c, d] in Figure 78. One stops:
Growth
Attack
Advancement
Continuation
a.
b.
c.
d.
horizontal
frontal
frontal
sagittal
against a progression:
upwards
inwards
forwards
to the right
on a directional axis:
vertical
sagittal
sagittal
transverse
with the palm(s) in a plane:
Figure 78.╇ Stopping a progression: different planes and axes of progression
Opposing the vertical axis, the Level Hand stops a progression upwards [a]. Opposing the sagittal axis going from back to front or outwards from oneself, the palm stops two types of progression: one coming towards oneself, inwards [b], and one going in the other direction, forwards [c]. In order to counter inverse progressions on the same axis, the palm in the frontal plane changes its orientation [b Æ c]. The Palm Forwards stops a progression coming from the outside and perceived to be aggressive [b]. To counter a progression in the inverse direction, generally, the hand is bent in the Right Angle configuration so (that) the inner surface of the fingers facing oneself stops progress towards a goal [c]. Opposing the transverse axis, the palm in the sagittal plane, in the Rigid Hand configuration, stops a progression to the right [d] (see also Chapter 10, Stopping a process). By way of example, here are some examples from the corpora: 245 Within the context of a dialogue, the Level Hand [a] co-occurs with the Â�following utterances: [a] Non non, laissez-moi parler. – Non mais [a] laissez-moi terminer – [a] Mais attendez quand même. [a] No no, let me speak. – No but [a] let me finish. – [a] But wait even so, says an old woman to her interlocutor before continuing. Opposing the axis of growth, the palm stops an ongoing process or, more exactly, it stops someone else from stopping the ongoing process. In other words, the Level Hand brusquely positioned in front of the speaker seems to physically want to stop something coming up from the ground, Â�probably a growth process; it symbolically suspends an ongoing process, and in Â�doing so, it pragmatically requests that the process of producing the ongoing Â�utterance is not interrupted.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
246 Always within the context of turn-taking in a conversation, the Palm Forwards [b] often stops all weak attempts to take a turn so that one can continue talking oneself: [b] Je voudrais ajouter un mot. – Excuse-moi, [b] je te rends la parole tout de suite. [b] I would like to add a word. – Excuse me, [b] I’ll let you speak again in a second. Physically, the Palm Forwards stops what is coming from the Â�outside; Â�virtually, it stops the speech flow expected from someone else; Â�pragmatically, it stops someone who is preparing himself to speak. Outside the context of a conversation and always with reference to the notion of stopping, the palm-obstacle can be moved to signify the more or less long term ([c], [d]), in which case it represents going up to certain point on a spatio-temporal path, or the end: 122 The hand in the Right Angle configuration [c] advances up to a certain limit in front of the speaker*: Nous sommes des myopes: le Français voit *à court terme. We are short sighted: the French person sees *in the short term (meaning he has a short-sighted view of events) 123 The Rigid Hand [d] slides to the right up to a certain limit*: C’est un peu *le gardien du long terme. (video 26) It’s a little bit like *the custodian of the long term [interests]. Lastly, let us recall a variant of stopping with the configuration [a]. The transverse movement of the edge of the Level Hand* cuts an ongoing process [a] that has come to an end. Used as a synonym of the end, the gesture may be symmetrical (**): 186 *Terminé. – **Je m’arrête, **je me retire. (video 42) *Gone. – **I stop, **I withdraw myself The idea of stopping is constant across these and further examples in the corpora. The Palm Forwards [b] held against someone who wants to take a speech turn is a sign of stopping that can have a defensive character. The palm that fixes an end point stops a spatio-temporal path continuing on the sagittal axis in front of oneself [c], or on the transverse axis [d]. The transverse movement of the Level Hand [a] represents the definitive stopping of an ongoing process that it cuts. We shall now study Â�gesture variants of cutting in which the movement of the hand in the three planes perpendicular to the three axes of progression is once again a relevant physical feature (see Figure 79). 3.1.2.2â•… The notion of cutting and all its gestural and semantic variants.â•… The Â�gestural representation of cutting involves a rapid movement of the edge of a flat rigid hand, initiated from the elbow, and that suddenly stops. The transverse movement of a Palm Forwards lacks sufficient cutting power: the analogical Â�gestural Â�representation
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
of Â�cutting takes physical reality into account, and the gesture’s relevant physical fÂ�eature thus resides in the quality of the movement of the edge of the hand. Let us note that it is the product of a gestural component (movement, brusquely stopped) and a Â�subcomponent (edge of the hand) that determines the relevant physical feature Â�underlying the analogical link that establishes the Â�gestural sign. There are four variants of cutting, and each one of them presents a semantic nuance (Calbris 1990: 129). The principle is simple. Each one breaks down into relevant physical elements that are determined by the plane in which the cut is executed and the orientation of the hand in that plane. To represent cutting, the edge of the hand cuts through space (1) vertically, in a plane perpendicular to the body or in a plane that is parallel to it, i.e. in the sagittal or the frontal plane respectively, or (2) horizontally, whereby the palm may be facing downwards or upwards. Each way of performing this gesture expresses a different shade of meaning as the following examples demonstrate. The gesture variants referred to and the planes in which they are executed are shown in Figure 79: 1. Vertically 247 In the sagittal plane, the gesture [d]* evokes cutting something in two. In the concrete sense: Un tonneau *qu’on avait scié au milieu (A barrel *that had been sawn through the middle). – And in the figurative sense: Je Â�voudrais qu’on ne pose pas la dichotomie *comme admise entre… (I wish that one would not take the dichotomy *as accepted between …). Indeed, the sagittal plane divides space into two parts – left and right – with reference to the symmetry of the body. 248 In the frontal plane, the gesture [c]*, sometimes symetrical**, corresponds more to the notion of rupture. The obstacle in front of oneself is a barrier, an obstacle to progression: ses conseillers lui disaient qu’il fallait s’arrêter **à la frontière avec la Russie (his advisers said to him that he had to stop **at the frontier with Russia). – Furthermore, by ‘disconnecting’ two partners who are facing each other, the gesture can represent quite another kind of barrier: nous risquons **la rupture de contrat (we risk **breach of contract). – On n’a pas la même Â�éducation, *il y a un mur entre nous (We do not have the same upbringing, *there is a ‘wall’ between us). 2. Horizontally 249 The transverse movement of the horizontal palm facing the ground (Level Hand) [a]* evokes total elimination. In a concrete sense: Il y avait des anciens bâtiments, *ils ont tout rasé (There were some old buildings: *they’ve knocked everything down) – And in a figurative sense: un commissaire de police a été *littéralement exécuté (a police officer was *literally executed). The cut appears to be complete and definitive; it seems impregnated with other meanings of the gesture.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
250 The transverse movement of the horizontal palm facing the sky [a’]* evokes a cut at the base. In a concrete sense: Mais on ne dit pas *qu’ils ont rasé les faubourgs de Praga (But nobody says that *they razed the districts of Prague to the ground). – And in a figurative sense about an administrative Â�decision: On peut se demander s’il n’essaie pas *de saper l’organisme (One asks oneself if he isn’t trying *to undermine the organization). – Here, a male nurse Â�prefers to express the terrible conclusion without saying a word: on l’a opéré, et deux mois après, *. (He had an operation and two months later, *‘scythed’ by Death’). Like a blade lying on its back, the horizontal palm facing upwards has an edge that represents a scythe and makes a close cut. Each shade of meaning – definitive cut [a]; cut at the base [a’]; rupture [c]; dichotomy [d] – is defined by compounding or cumulating two notions that are expressed simultaneously by the gesture: cut + totality [a]; cut + level with the ground [a’]; cut + obstacle [c]; cut + division into two [d].
Cut in plane:
Cut:
horizontal [a]
horizontal [a’]
+ total
+ level with the ground
frontal [c]
+ obstacle
sagittal [d]
+ division in two
Figure 79.╇ Cutting: for each variant, a semantic nuance (Calbris 1990: 129)
3.1.3â•… Nuance contributed by the polysemous gesture to each notion The transverse movement of the Level Hand conveys a specific nuance to each one of the notions that it represents (see Figure 80, top row). As a sign of totality, it represents a ‘finished’ totality (1a), as opposed to a ‘united’ totality or homogenous ensemble (1d) represented by the manual sketch of a sphere. As a sign of negation, it corresponds to an absolute negation (2a). As a sign of cutting, it expresses a total, definitive cut (3a). As a sign of stopping, it represents stopping definitively (4a). The element of meaning ‘totality’ linked to the transverse movement is a constant element that complements other notions that are conveyed. Each of the gestures discussed above, whether it be a sign of negation or total severance, thus cumulates two analogical links and is thus a polysign. The polysemous gesture becomes, in this instance, a polysign.
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions  Notions 1.
2.
3.
4.
Totality
Negation
Cut
Stop
finished
absolute
total
definitive
b.
finished
defensive
level with the ground
defensive
c.
finished
of refusal
obstacle
time limit
d.
united
corrective
division in two
time limit
Variants a.
Figure 80.╇ Polysemy and variants: different notions nuanced by the polysemy of the gesture
In sum, the method of analysis consists in creating samples which are sorted according to the contextual meanings of the gesture in question; one classifies the contextual meanings of the gesture to identify the different gestural signs that it can contain by taking into account the phenomenon of semantic derivation that allows one to group together the occurrences which have the same analogical link in common, for example, all those that trace a straight line and express directness on the temporal, logical or moral level. If the gesture has contextual meanings which one can no longer classify into semantic groups, then one must look for the different analogical links that establish each of the gestural signs expressed by the gesture, for example, totality, negation, cutting, stop-end, as we have seen in the case of a transverse movement of the Level Hand. How do we find the analogical link established between one of the physical aspects of the gesture and its meaning? As already shown in Chapter 1, by examining what the gesture variants of each notion physically have in common (vertical columns of Figure 80):
 Elements of meaning in gesture
–
–
–
–
Column 1. The gesture variants (a, b, c) that express the notion of totality (1) have a transverse movement in common; this may be a single or repeated head movement, and/or a single or symmetrical movement of the Level Hand(s). Thus, the gaze and/or the hand sweep(s) the horizon. The common physical feature of sweeping the horizon represents a percept, ‘all’ or ‘everywhere’, at the origin of the concept (see Chapter 1). Column 2. The gesture variants (a, b, c, d) that express the notion of negation (2) do not have a common physical feature, but they do have a common physical motivation. They are all derived from an active or passive reflex of refusal (see above, The semantics of physical refusal; Figure 77). Column 3. All four gesture variants (a, b, c, d) that express the notion of cutting (3) consist in a brusquely stopped movement of the edge of the hand, whereby the plane in which the cut is executed conveys a complementary piece of information (see Figure 79). Column 4. The gesture variants (a, b, c, d) that express the notion of stopping (4) all present a flat palm which resembles a board that blocks a progression. The direction of the antagonistic progression specifies the type of stopping (see Figure 78).
Are the gesture variants (a, b, c, d) stylistic variants or semantic variants of the common notion? Almost each gesture variant presents a shade of meaning: – –
–
–
Totality is considered as a maximum surface area, a maximum level (1a), or a united ensemble (1d). Negation has an absolute character ‘none’ (2a), or a defensive character ‘no thank you’ (2b), or it corresponds to a refusal ‘no’ (2c), or a correction ‘oh no, excuse me’ (2d). Cut is nuanced according to the plane in which the cutting movement is performed and the orientation of the palm in that plane: the manual blade cuts everything in front of oneself (3a), or cuts at ground level (3b), or cuts a path in front of oneself (3c), or cuts an object into two equal parts (3d). Stop is nuanced according to the axis of progression to which the palm is Â�perpendicularly opposed: the stop is a definitive one if the palm makes a transverse movement (4a), or a defensive one if it is positioned to face outwards (Palm Forwards) (4b). Limiting a progression, it fixes a limit reached on the sagittal axis (4c), or an end point on the transverse axis (4d).
In each column (1, 2, 3, 4) we find the analogical link corresponding to the notion and in each row (a, b, c, d) the secondary analogical link expressing the shade of �meaning. For instance, variant (a), the transverse movement of the Level Hand, expresses a common shade of meaning for each one of the notions (1, 2, 3, 4) expressed by the polysemous gesture: the totality is finished (1a); the negation is absolute (2a); the cut is total
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
(3a); and the stop is definitive (4a). For each notion, the polysemous gesture cumulates two analogical links, namely, the link specific to the notion, and the link that, representing ‘totality’, adds a shade of meaning to it. By adding a shade of meaning to each notion that it expresses, it becomes a semantic variant and (acts as) a polysign. Each polysign variant is defined ideationally by two analogical links (coordinates on Figure 80): one corresponding to the principal notion (vertical coordinate: 1, 2, 3, 4), and the other (horizontal coordinate: a) corresponding to the second notion that adds nuance to the principal one.
3.2â•… The symbolic mechanism The elements in the symbolic Meccano kit are the analogical links between physical features and contextual meanings of gestures that constitute gestural signs. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that “one must not confuse the physical elements that constitute a gestural sign with the physical components of the gesture, the Â�physico-symbolic level with the physical level. Establishing a gestural sign consists in selecting a Â�component or subcomponent or in combining them depending on what is required to produce the figurative representation in question” (see Chapter 4). There is no one-to-one correlation between the number of analogical links and the number of kinesic entities. One may encounter one link in several kinesic units, just as one may encounter several links in one kinesic unit. To demonstrate this, let us now consider, respectively, a facial-gestural ensemble, a gesture, and a gestural component which contain one single or several links depending on their contexts of use.
3.2.1â•… A facial-gestural ensemble contains one or several analogical links 3.2.1.1â•… One link.â•… A facial-gestural ensemble contains one single link if the Â�relevance is in the same movement performed by different body parts. The upward movement to a high position of the hand, the head, and the eyebrows is a kinetic translation of the notion of increase simultaneously expressed by ‘Et Dieu sait si!…’ (And God only knows if!) (see Chapter 1, Figure 1). Another Â�example we have already analysed is the transverse movement of the hand or the head Â�referring conjointly to the horizon to represent totality (see Chapter 1): the two gestures can cumulate in a stylistic variant. 3.2.1.2â•… Several links.â•… In other cases, several links are simultaneously supported by different physical elements. Let us take as an example a facial-gestural ensemble in which variation only occurs in the facial expression. The gesture that remains constant is the thumb rubbing against the index and middle fingers. When the chin is directed towards the interlocutor, this kinesic ensemble will be understood as a question about something that is palpable between the fingers: money. Â�Depending
 Elements of meaning in gesture
on the situation, this combination – ‘money’ + ‘question’ – will be Â�interpreted as a request for money, ‘have you got enough money?’, or as a question about the cost of a desired object, ‘how much does that cost?’. Let us consider the effects of changing the facial expression. Enlarging the eyes by opening the eyelids wide, perhaps adding a whistle as well, translates an exclamation about the amount of money, ‘that’s expensive!’. Let us change the facial expression once more. The gaze is no longer directed towards the interlocutor but is disengaged and wanders around the space as if searching for … looking for money perhaps? No. The kinesic ensemble combines the components that represent searching for a sensation that is hard to define, ‘what do I feel, what is this thing that I can’t see but feel between my fingers?’. The gesture expresses a tactile sensation and hence the feeling, the intuition that one has got something that is difficult to put into words. Here is a televised example: 251 [self-touch of the fingers and the palm with the fingers, while the gaze Â�continually wanders around the space in front of the speaker], de, de cette Â�notion de repli sur soi [before landing on the interlocutor to produce the word that has been found] et d’égoïsme, dans tout le pays. (video 59) [self-touch of the fingers and the palm with the fingers, while the gaze Â�continually wanders around the space in front of the speaker], of, of this Â�notion of withdrawal into oneself [before landing on the interlocutor to Â�produce the word that has been found] and of egotism, in the whole country. The facial expression has allowed us to select one of the possible meanings of the finger-rub gesture: it refers to the object held and rubbed between the fingers or the thing to be defined by rubbing it. The questioning facial expression can be associated with the first meaning (money), and the disengaged gaze only with the second (word searches). Similarly, in Chapter 1 (see Figure 4), we examined an example of a Â�facial-gestural ensemble in which the facial expression determines the meaning of a Ring gesture, which can mean ‘perfect’ or ‘delicious’ with a smiling expression, or ‘zero’ or ‘worthlessness’ with sullen expression. These examples show that there is interaction between analogical links in different physical elements; the presence of one link allows another one to be selected which specifies the meaning conveyed.
3.2.2╅ A gesture contains one or several analogical links 3.2.2.1╅ One link.╅ A gesture that is reduced to simply putting the hand into a �configuration contains one analogical link. This is the case of the Palm Forwards that essentially represents a self-protective opposition which is readily �subject to semantic derivation (see Chapter 7, Confirmation of the analogical link: Gradational opposition).
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
3.2.2.2â•… Several links.â•… But a gesture generally involves moving a body part, the hand or the head, for example. In displacing the right fist from left to right during “j’ai fait cet effort de passer à la majorité droitière” (I’ve made this effort to join the right-handed majority; Example 192, video 45), the Fist configuration evokes Â�psychological strength, and its curved transverse movement evokes a transfer. Both of these gestural components contain an analogical link, and the gesture thus becomes a polysign (see Chapter 7, The polysign gesture). Let us reconsider the example of the transverse movement of the Level Hand (see Chapter 7. Figure 53. The analogical links contained in a polysemous gesture). The flat hand is a surface that is flat, rigid, sensitive, reversible, equipped with an oriented point, and a cutting edge. The context enables the transverse movement of the Level Hand to make pertinent and to give relevance to one of the physical aspects of the palm facing downwards that are alternately available: the fingertips if it concerns the representation of what is happening in a direct line, the edge of the hand if it concerns a cut, the surface of the palm if it concerns a flat level, the orientation of the palm if it concerns stopping an opposing force. The context provided by the co-occurring speech compared with the gesture makes one of the subcomponents of the configuration of the Level Hand (transverse movement: of the fingertips; of the edge; of the palm facing downwards; of the surface of the palm) relevant. 3.2.3â•… A gestural component contains one or several analogical links 3.2.3.1â•… One link.â•… A flat configuration represents a plane. An upward movement can represent increase. A transverse movement refers to the horizon. So far, there are no surprises here; one gestural component contains one analogical link. 3.2.3.2â•… Several links.â•… But simply putting the hand into a configuration can be polysemous, the context privileging one analogical link to the detriment of another possible one. This was the case with the Ring gesture, in which a French person would see either the representation of a circle symbolizing perfection, the number zero symbolizing worthlessness, or a finger pinch that, evoking a tiny object to be picked up, refers to precision (see Chapter 1). We saw that the head tilt may contain several analogical links: (1) representing a different angle of view, it signifies different a point of view than the one expressed verbally; (2) forming an angle with the vertebral column, it reproduces an obliqueness which represents something that is not upright; (3) moved towards the shoulder as if to rest there, it is a sign of tenderness, or of benevolence. We saw above that the Â�possibility of cumulating two analogical signs in a polysemous gesture allows two Â�gestural signs to combine (sign of a different point of view + sign of tenderness) to express an amicable restriction (see Example 244 and Table 17).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Movement, another gestural component, can also be polysemous. A movement forwards designates a goal; it reproduces a movement towards something or someone. It can be a displacement outwards or against an aggression coming from the outside (see Chapter 7, Figure 56. The polysemy of a movement forwards). As we saw earlier (see Chapter 7, Figure 54), the anticlockwise, ‘regressive’ direction of a curved movement may signify (1) going back in time, (2) introspection, or (3) inversion. It contains several analogical links. Indeed, walking backwards to the point of departure situated on the vertical axis of the speaker’s body (1. going back in time) physically merges with the direction inwards, towards an interior space represented by the speaker’s body (2. introspection). Moreover, performed in the opposite direction to the normal rotary movement of the hands of a clock, it thus represents a contradiction (3. logical inversion). A complex movement can be a polysign. We have seen that the forward displacement of loops represents a forward progression in time, while their execution in the anticlockwise direction*represents logical inversion: “Est-ce que son esprit de responsabilité *doit consister au contraire à l’accompagner et à faire qu’elle soit possible?” (His sense of responsibility *must [it] entail on the contrary accompanying it and acting to make it possible?) (see Chapter 7, A bireferential gestural component). In the two extreme cases cited – a kinesic ensemble with one single analogical link and a gestural component with several links – the movement is the relevant Â�physical element! In the first case, an analogical link is attributed to a movement simultaneously performed by different body parts within a kinesic ensemble. In the second we have the opposite situation: a movement decomposes into a direction of displacement and an orientation that differ and both of which convey meaning. Hence two Â�analogical links express two gestural signs within one kinesic subunit. Once again, all that matters is the materialized analogical link.
3.2.4â•… Connective interplay between analogical links Now that we have reviewed the number of possible links in each type of physical entity, let us examine the possibilities for various relationships between the analogical links. First of all, let us recall that the different links appear alternately for a polysemous entity, and simultaneously for a polysign entity (see Chapter 1). We have just noted that the physical entity in question is supra-gestural, gestural, or infra-gestural, because a kinesic ensemble, a gesture, or a gestural component can each change their signification (be polysemous), or refer to several things at once (be a polysign). 3.2.4.1â•… The complex gesture.â•… The complex gesture is a special case of polysign gesture (see Chapter 7, The case of the ‘complex’ gesture, Examples 200–201). Â�Being a combination of two simple gestures, each of which is attributed with one analogical link, the new gesture is a hybrid creation which respects the initial links despite
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
Â� physical modifications: the combination of the relevant physical elements (ab) corresponds to the sum of the analogical links established between them and their respective meanings (A, B). Figure 81 explicates each of the terms in this sentence: Being a combination of two simple gestures (G1 and G2), each of which is attributed with one analogical link (a–A, b–B), the new gesture is a hybrid creation (G3) which respects the initial links (a–A, b–B), despite physical modifications. G1
G2
Physical elements: Links:
a
b
Meanings:
A
B
Simple gestures:
Links: Physical elements:
a b
Complex Gesture:
G3
Figure 81.╇ The case of the complex gesture
With regard to how analogical links link together, is it possible for a polysemous gesture to be a polysign temporarily, and for a polysign to become polysemous? Let us rephrase the question. Within the framework of a polysemous gesture, can the potential links that consecutive contexts come to ‘activate’ alternately be Â�activated simultaneously? It seems that they can (see below, The polysemous gesture as a polysign). Inversely, with regard to a gesture that presents several links and simultaneously refers to two notions, can it change its signification in another context? Yes, under Â�certain circumstances (see below, The polysemous polysign gesture). Let us look again at both cases in point, already examined above, to refresh our memory.
3.2.5â•… The polysemous gesture as a polysign The gesture whose polysemy is explained by the presence of several possible Â�analogical links only expresses one of its meanings in a given context (one link), but it turns out to be nuanced by one of its other significations (another link). We have thus noted that the transverse movement of the Level Hand expresses, among Â�others things, totality, negation, cutting, or the end (see Figure 80). But it Â�specifically concerns a complete totality, an absolute negation, or a total severance. Each notion (negation, cutting) nuanced by one of the others (totality) combines two Â�analogical links, namely the link specific to the notion and the link representing totality that adds a nuance. The specified variant becomes a polysign. This polysemous gesture serves as a speech substitute to signify ‘the end’. Is this because the notion of ‘the end’ in fact brings together all the analogical links that the gesture can express
 Elements of meaning in gesture
(see Chapter 7, Figure 53), and because there is no possible ambiguity? The �gesture represents the stopping of an ongoing process (hand parallel to the ground, palm facing downwards, giving resistance to something coming up from the ground, a growth process) that is interrupted forever (the edge of the hand cuts the space through and through with a rapid transverse movement from left to right). According to the same principle, the head tilt, alternately a sign of restriction or tenderness, is employed as an amicable means of applying a restriction: the respective links are simultaneously evoked to meet the needs of the situation. Indeed, laterally tilting the head enables one to view an object from another angle (sign of restriction), while it also simulates the act of resting the head on a shoulder (sign of tenderness) (see Table 17. Nuances of restriction due to the polysemy of each gesture). In fact, every variant selected for the nuance it conveys functions as a polysign.
3.2.6â•… The polysemous polysign gesture The second case in point, whereby a gesture presenting several links and simultaneously referring to two notions (a polysign) may change its signification according to context (become polysemous), has already been presented: in Chapter 1, we examined the forward movement of the fist (see Table 3), and in Chapter 7, the forward movement of the Right Angle configuration (see Examples 202–211). Let us now review a third example of this second case that was also presented in Chapter 7: an anticlockwise looping (see Figure 54). Here we examine how this movement combining a looping form and an anticlockwise direction can function as a polysign (see Table 18). A polysign contains a minimum of two signs due to the simultaneous activation of two analogical links (1–2), each analogically linking one of the gesture’s physical aspects to one of its meanings. It is sufficient that one of the movement components (here the anticlockwise direction) is attributed with several possible links (2, 3, 4) for the gesture to be able to change its meaning according to a different combination of links inferred from the context (1–2, 1–3, 1–4). In addition, one of the links (3. Direction towards oneself) can be subject to a semantic derivation and augment the range of possible contextual meanings (a. Introspection, b. Assimilation, etc.). Table 18.╇ A polysemous polysign gesture Loop(s)
Anticlockwise direction
Anticlockwise direction of a loop
Link 1
Links 2, 3, 4
Contextual meanings (with semantic derivation for link 3)
1: Evolution
2: Backwards 3: Towards oneself 4: Anticlockwise direction
1–2: Return to the point of departure 1–3: a. Introspection, b. Assimilation, etc. 1–4: Logical opposition
Chapter 8.╇ The analogical links between gestures and notions 
In other words, the number of analogical links (1, 2, 3, 4) and their possible linkages (1–2, 1–3, 1–4) presents the first level of a gesture’s potential for semantic diversity, the second being the possibility of semantic derivation based on one of the analogical links (1-3a, 1-3b, etc.). To sum up, here is a ‘mathematical’ presentation of the number of a gesture’s Â�possible significations (see Table 19) obtained by the presence of analogical links (1–, 2–, etc.) manifested alternately (polysemous gesture) or simultaneously (polysign gesture). For reasons of simplicity, only the case of two links is demonstrated. In order for a polysemous gesture (1, 2) to become a polysign, it is sufficient for two alternative links (1, 2) to be simultaneously activated by the context (1–2). In order for a polysign gesture that activates two analogical links based on two gestural components (1–2) to become polysemous, it is sufficient that there is one semantic derivation based on one of the links (1–2a; 1–2b; 1–2c). Another Â�possibility of semantic extension is the expression of two elements of meaning conveyed by two analogical links (1) and (2) that allows different semantic combinations (1–2 or 2–1). For example, combining the elements of meaning ‘progression’ and ‘limit’ gives ‘progress up to the following limit’ or ‘to limit a progression’ (see Chapter 7, The Â�polysemous polysign gesture: Examples 202–211). We have also seen that combining the elements of meaning ‘approximation’ and ‘mixture’ gives ‘a sort of confusion’ or ‘an approximate mixture’ (see Chapter 7, The case of the ‘complex’ gesture, Examples 200, 201, Figure 55). Table 19.╇ Alternation and simultaneity of the analogical links Alternative links Polysemous gesture
Polysemous polysign
Simultaneous links
with semantic derivation (a, b, c)
1–
1a, 1b, 1c
2–
2a, 2b, 2c 1–2 1–2
1–2a, 1–2b, 1–2c 2–1a, 2–1b, 2–1c
At the beginning of this chapter I insisted upon the importance of the analogical link by showing the diversity of gestural signs derived from the ways in which people physically express refusal in everyday life (The semantics of physical refusal). We already knew that it is sufficient to compare the gesture variants of a notion in order to discover the physical feature underlying the analogical link that �establishes a gestural sign (see Chapter 1). In the given example of the forward projection of the fist that can represent either one of two notions (Figure 75), we were able to
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Â� discover the respective analogical links underlying each gestural sign by comparing the gesture variants expressing each notion (Table 16). By comparing the variants of Â�refusal-negation on both the physical level and the semantic level, we were able to ascertain the analogical links that explain the semantic choice made in the case of each variant (see Figure 77): the speaker thus formulates via gesture the difference between the rejection of an assertion and the assertion of a non-existent entity. Comparing the gesture variants reveals the correspondence between the analogical link and the use of a particular variant. A gesture may activate several analogical links simultaneously (polysign and complex gesture), or alternatively (polysemous gesture) and cumulate them simultaneously (polysemous gesture expressing one of the semantic variants of a notion). While expressing two notions simultaneously one can thus add precision to one notion via another notion. For example, the gestural expression of the notion of ‘concrete designation’ may be specifically informal vs. polite vs. discreet vs. aggressive vs. offhand. Likewise, the notion of ‘restriction’ may be specifically prudent vs. corrective vs. friendly (see Table 17); a ‘stop’ may be that of growth, of attack, of advancement, or of continuation (see Figure 78); a ‘cut’ may be total vs. at level ground vs. rupture vs. cut in two (see Figure 79). Moreover, the example of the transverse movement of the Level Hand shows us that a polysemous gesture may temporally function as a polysign: any one of its meanings (totality, negation, cut, stop) may be nuanced by one of the other meanings of the gesture: finished totality, absolute negation, total cut, definitive stop (see Figure 80). With respect to the symbolic mechanism, it has been shown that one may encounter one gestural sign, i.e. one analogical link, in a kinesic ensemble, just as one may encounter several different analogical links in a kinesic subunit: an analogical link is established on the basis of a relevant physical feature and not a kinesic unit. Analogical links maintain different types of relations according to the Â�situation, ranging from simple juxtaposition in the case of the polysign to complementary Â�relations in the case of a polysemous gesture chosen to express one notion nuanced by another. Lastly, it happens that the need to simultaneously produce two gestural signs usually expressed by two different gestures leads the speaker to concatenate them within one so-called ‘complex’ gesture (see Figure 81). The study of the connective interplay between analogical links ended with a Â�‘mathematical’ presentation of the number of a gesture’s possible meanings obtained by the presence of two alternative or simultaneous analogical links (see Table 19). In summary, the multiplicity of gestural signs is readily reduced to the establishment of an analogical link between a physical feature of the gesture and its contextual meaning. Now that we know how to identify the gestural sign under its different Â�appearances, we shall be able to study its role in the utterance in Chapter 9.
part iv
The gestural sign in utterance
As indicated in the Introduction, Part IV presents the relations maintained between the gestural sign and the verbal sign during multimodal communication (Chapter 9) and explains the specific contribution of gesture to the expression of thought during utterance (Chapter 10). As an analogical sign, a gesture ultimately expresses an intermediary preconceptual schema between the concrete and the abstract and, in a way, it retraces the roots of abstract thought back to the shared perceptual experience of the interlocutors.
chapter 9
The gestural sign and speech In this chapter the relations maintained between gesture and speech on the temporal and the semantic levels will be studied. Care will be taken not to confuse the two types of units under consideration: physical audio-oral and visual-gestural units on the one hand, and semantic units on the other. On the temporal level, we shall consider various cases where gesture and speech alternate during the expression of thought and where it is clearly evident that gesture substitutes for speech (Relations between gestural and verbal units). We shall then examine cases in which gesture co-occurs with speech during utterance production and discuss the types of semantic relations maintained between the verbal and gestural information. It will be shown that gesture may simultaneously convey a complementary piece of information presented in the form of a comment, an explanation, or a clarification of the content of the message (A co-verbal sign). It also happens that the gestural information conveyed during speech production precedes analogous verbal information; it gives an idea of the content to be put into words (A pre-verbal sign). By doing this, gesturing can help the speaker to find an appropriate formulation for what he wants to say (An aid to verbalization), whereas the interlocutor uses the gestural information to guess what will be said (Interplay between tension and relaxation in communicating information). These diverse observations provide the basis for generating non-mutually exclusive hypotheses about the asynchronous distribution of information across synchronous kinesic units of gesture and prosodic units of speech (Hypotheses on gesture anticipating speech). Furthermore, the fact that information can be distributed across the two expressive modalities in the same instant allows speakers to synthesize them into a compound unit of new information by switching to and fro between the gestural and verbal information conveyed (The interactive construction of meaning by the two types of sign). The analysis of a selected utterance (Example 278) offers a recapitulation of points which have been made previously: (1) The utterance produced as a continuum is segmented into gestural-verbal temporal units to study the semantic relations between gestural and verbal units, and (2) the identification of the referent of a co-speech gesture leads to the concluding observation that (3) the co-verbal gestural referent anticipates the verbal referent, i.e. the co-verbal gestural sign often is pre-verbal.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
The chapter ends by explaining what can be gained by carrying out a semiotic analysis that facilitates the identification of the gestural sign and how it furthers our understanding of its role in multimodal communication.
1.â•… Relations between gestural and verbal units In order to study the interactions between gestural and verbal units and avoid confounding the types of unit involved, one has to make a distinction between temporal units and semantic units. The former are successive or simultaneous, whereas the latter are equivalent or different.
1.1â•… Temporal relations between semantic units Gesture and speech may alternate within an utterance. Slama-Cazacu (1977) calls this phenomenon ‘mixed syntax’ and she observed it in the context of spontaneous communication in an experimental setting1 where it was a question of acting upon concrete objects present in the room. She defines the concept of “mixed syntax” as follows: The most frequent [form of] human communication (praesentibus partibus, predominantly oral) is established by a discourse formed of sequences of messages into which verbal components are inserted – often accompanied by nonverbal components: gestures and facial expressions having the role of underlining and basically complementing the verbal components. But the sequence of the verbal components is often interrupted by nonverbal components that replace the former. This insertion varies in frequency and in nature according to situation, to the “register” adopted, to the psychological type of the interlocutors, their relations, etc. It concerns the alternating use, within the same message, of “words” and of nonverbal signs (gestures, eye gaze, object manipulation, the use made of the whole contextual situation or of certain parts of it, etc.). (Slama-Cazacu 1977:â•›118)2
.â•… Slama-Cazacu carried out her experiments at the Laboratory of Psycholinguistics, University of Bucharest, Romania. .â•… “La communication humaine la plus fréquente (praesentibus partibus, à prédominance orale) est constituée par un discours formé de séquences de messages où s’insèrent les composantes verbales – souvent accompagnées de composantes non verbales: gestes, mimiques ayant le rôle de souligner et au fond de compléter les composantes verbales. Mais la séquence des composantes verbales est souvent interrompue par des composantes non verbales, qui remplacent les premières. Cette insertion varie en fréquence et nature selon les situations, le “registre” adopté, le type psychique des interlocuteurs, leurs relations, etc. Il s’agit de l’↜emploi alternatif, dans le même message, de “mots” et de signes non verbaux (gestes, regard, manipulation d’objets, usage fait de la situation commune en son entier ou de certaines de ses parties, etc.).”, (Slama-Cazacu 1977:â•›118). Translation MC.
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
The results of Slama-Cazacu’s analysis of this phenomenon demonstrate the capital importance of eye-gaze direction, the temporal interval between the verbal and the nonverbal components, the nature and form of the different nonverbal components (words, gestures, eye gaze, the object integrated into the communication act, etc.) as well as the sequence of their occurrence in the message communicated.3 There are occasions when a person alternates speech with gesture so that a gesture may occupy a slot in a sentence as if it were a word or other spoken construction. For example, sometimes a person may use a gesture as a way of giving silent expression to something that it would not be socially appropriate to say in words, they may use a gesture instead of a unit of speech within an utterance because the gesture is more ‘expressive’, it may have more impact, or they may do it for ‘pragmatic’ reasons. In the examples given below, when such gesture-speech alternations occur (S → G → S), the gesture substituting for the unit of spoken expression either comes at the beginning of an utterance (G → S), or at the end (S → G). (S → G). In Examples 252 and 253, the speaker switches to nonverbal gestural expression at the end of the utterance in order to express what is better left unsaid: 252 Moins je la vois, mieux je me porte parce que… (The less I see her, the better I feel because…) [palm facing the speaker at face level, fingers folded in the horizontal plane trace a transverse line at cranial level]. The gesture is the emblem of exasperation synonymous with ‘Ras le bol’ (Fed up). 253 Je me demande s’↜il n’↜est pas un peu… (I ask myself if he isn’t a bit…) [concave hand facing the temple, the fingers rotate back and forth as if screwing and unscrewing a mechanism]. The gesture is the emblem synonymous with ‘Fou, qui ne tourne pas rond’ (Crazy, lit. ‘that does not turn round’: that doesn’t work), (see Chapter 4, Figure 19.3). Quite often, gesture allows a speaker to take up a comment again in order to conclude it, thus avoiding verbal redundancy: 254 A young man is having breakfast in a cafe with some colleagues. After a lively discussion, I see him (1) rub his palms alternately against each other in downward movements, as if to remove dust off each palm after finishing a manual job (see Chapter 8, Figure 60); (2) then symmetrically trace a horizontal barrier with both palms facing downwards; (3) and finally direct his thumb backwards. The gesture sequence composed of emblems is equivalent to (1) Good riddance; (2) Nothing; (3) Behind (me) and could be translated as: “(1) It’s over (2) definitively, (3) it’s up to them now.”
.â•… Cf. Slama-Cazacu (1977:â•›119–122).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
(G → S). Inversely, in the following examples, semantic units of gesture precede verbal units with directly related semantic content. The attitudes of refusal, ignorance, and powerlessness seem equally well predisposed to conclude an explanation as to announce the content of a verbal comment, as we see here: 255 The theatre director Jean Vilar produced this nice example of gestural anticipation during an interview. Very sceptical, he precedes his negative response to a question with a very eloquent mute sequence of facial expressions: The stuck-out tip of the tongue and the lowered head and eyes express embarrassment (see Figure 82.1), then the eye gaze directed upwards signifies a word search that the shape of the mouth (corners curved downwards, lips pressed together) indicates is difficult (see Figure 82.2) and that the mouth fart, produced by noisily projecting the lower lip into a pout “putt”, finally reveals to be fruitless (see Figure 82.3). The negative result of this word search is confirmed by a brief lateral head shake that occurs during “J’↜avoue que je” (I admit that I) and once again by a pout just before concluding “je ne comprends pas bien le mot” (I don’t understand the word well). (see video 60).
1. Embarrassment
2. Search
3. Ignorance
Figure 82.╇ Gesture anticipating speech (Example 255)
(S → G → S). One also encounters cases of verbal reformulation relating to a gestural formulation that is quite explicit on its own (see Table 20): 256 For example, a politician cites a colleague who is more optimistic than he is about local authority administration: Alors lui, il avait une autre théorie, il disait: Il faut lancer le train et après, ça arrivera. Eh bien, ça arrive pas parce que Monsieur [both hands, facing downwards, closed in fists, side by side, perform a rapid symmetrical transverse movement that pulls them apart] Bérégovoy↜4 [same movement again at the end of the gesture but with more effort] [tƒi-koe],… Well he (emphatic pronoun), he had another theory, he used to say: You’ve got to set the train in motion, it’ll get there. Ah well, it doesn’t get there .â•… Pierre Bérégovoy was the French Minister of Economy and Finances at that time.
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
because Monsieur [both hands, facing downwards, closed in fists, side by side, perform a rapid symmetrical transverse movement that pulls them apart] Bérégovoy [same movement again at the end of the gesture but with more effort] [tƒi-koe],… The idea of a ‘radical cut in public spending’ communicated gesturally is Â�explicitly made clear by the synchronous onomatopoeic noise (a brief Â�high-pitched hiss [tƒi] interrupted by the synchronous explosive sound of strangulation [koe]). The abrupt gesture of symmetrically pulling (strings enclosed in the fists) to the left and right (of a purse situated between them) evokes an image that is subsequently confirmed verbally: …il ferme tous tous les cordons de la bourse (lit. ‘he closes all all the purse strings’: he cuts off all all financial resources). (video 61) In Example 256, the topic is verbal and the comment is initially nonverbal. The latter is finally reformulated verbally. Contrary to what one would commonly think, there is no gestural redundancy in this instance but a verbal redundancy. To achieve more impact, the speaker amuses himself, like a child, by expressing himself through gesture and onomatopoeia. It then seems that, motivated by a scruple regarding his mode of expression, he feels the need for a verbal epilogue. He thus gives his interlocutor to understand that he has not acted out of ignorance, but in order to achieve greater expressivity. In this respect, the simultaneous onomatopoeia evocative of strangulation allows the speaker to represent two images, the tightening of the drawstrings and the strangulation of the politician whose purse strings have been pulled tight, i.e. whose financial resources have been cut off. The sequence – kinesic-vocal information → verbal reformulation – is not an isolated case. Two other examples given below confirm this. 257 A man is talking about a storm that happened the night before. He begins his sentence “Le vent” (The wind) and, while producing the continuous sound of the wind blowing a gale [brrr], his right palm, held vertically, rapidly sweeps across all the space in front of him as if his palm were felling the trees in question, one after the other. Then he announces the result and finishes his sentence: “(le vent [brrr]) … les a tous cassés” (lit. the wind has broken them all). 258 A young woman who has just started a new job is telling a friend in the Métro about the constraints imposed on her by various people when she was unemployed. Her face then lights up. She says, “Maintenant que je travaille…” (Now that I’m working…) and emits a whistle [wit] synchronous with a gesture that also expresses the speed of the change. With her hand folded in the right-angle configuration in front of her, moving the backs of her fingers like a door that swiftly opens, she chases away what was figuratively hindering her progress before explicitly stating verbally: (everything that was hindering me, I have) “expédié!” (sent away).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Table 20.╇ Nonverbal expressivity Verbal topic
Nonverbal comment vocal – kinesic
Monsieur Bérégovoy, Mr Bérégovoy,
[tƒikoe]
Le vent The wind Maintenant que je travaille, Now that I’m working,
[brrr] [wit]
Repeated verbally
il ferme les cordons de la bourse he closes the purse strings palm sweeps in front les a tous cassés of the speaker: has broken them all backs of fingers chase expédié sth. away forwards: sent away fists separate symmetrically:
Key. In italics: the utterance. In square brackets: the phonetic transcription of the vocal noise.
For further examples of gestural information preceding analogous verbal information, the reader is referred to the section ‘A pre-verbal sign’ below.
1.2â•… Semantic relations between temporal units When gesture and speech alternate, whether the order is (S → G) or (G → S), the gesture functions much as if it were a word or other unit of linguistic expression, taking its place in the construction of the utterance as a component of its syntax. On the other hand, when gesture and speech occur together, the gestural expression and the co-occurring spoken expression may be related semantically in two different ways. Sometimes the co-occurring gesture functions like a ‘commentary’, simultaneously added on to what is being expressed in words. At other times the two forms of expression are interdependent and their meanings interact. These two kinds of relationship between gesture and speech are discussed in the next section.
2.â•… A co-verbal sign 2.1â•… Simultaneous gestural commentary In this case the verbal utterance is no longer truncated by gestures as in Examples Â�252–258. Here, the simultaneous gesture can indicate the speaker’s attitude or Â�comment on what he is saying. In relation to the object of the utterance, his attitude may be a positive reaction (of joy), or a negative reaction that may be active (anger, annoyance; Example 259) or passive (powerlessness, desolation; Example 260). In relation to the interlocutor, the gesture may express tenderness (to apologize, to solicit a response; Example 261) and the wish to reassure. Or, on the contrary, it can express denigration, a threat, or a warning (Example 262). From attitude, one passes to commentary, positive or negative, even if only to enhance the utterance or to attenuate it. The most common enhancement is the
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
gesture corresponding to the French exclamation Oh là là5 (the hand, palm facing the chest, is shaken up and down several times) which indicates the degree to which the speaker is emotionally stirred up and thus conveys the notion of quantity. Another is positioning the forearm in front of the stomach with the palm facing downwards and projecting the fist outwards. In this case, the gesture is synonymous with strength and expressed in French by words such as ‘fort’ (extremely), ‘très’ (very), ‘super’ (super), ‘vachement’ (really), and it thus functions as a superlative (see Chapter 8, Elucidating a polysemy by comparing gesture variants, The projection of the fist). Inversely, a head tilt can be a sign of restriction equivalent to ‘seen from this angle’ to subtly modify and attenuate a comment (Example 264), whereas a lateral head shake will reinforce it by denying in advance a possible objection that the interlocutor may raise (Example 263). The cited examples illustrating these different cases are given below.
2.1.1â•… Attitude to the object of the utterance 259 A pensioner expresses his anger by banging his fist on the table*: *Personne n’↜en parle! (*Nobody talks about it!) 260 *Eh ben non, ça fait trois mois que ça dure! (*Hey no way, it’s three months now that that’s been going on). The hands raised at shoulder level so that they can then drop relaxed on to the thighs represent powerlessness and imply ‘There’s nothing one can do’.
2.1.2â•… Attitude to the interlocutor 261 An adolescent would like to wear her latest dress for the first time although it is not warm enough on this particular winter evening. Her mother refuses her permission. She argues while trying to soften her mother’s attitude by tilting her head and pouting tenderly*: *Même si je mets un gros pull sous la robe, ça se remarque pas (*Even if I put a thick pullover under the dress, it won’t be noticed). 262 The President of the Republic delivers a warning by shaking his index finger in the sagittal plane*: *Mais qu’↜on n’attende pas autre chose de moi (*But don’t expect something else from me).
.â•… Calbris (1983:â•›395–397), Calbris & Montredon (1980:â•›31–33), Calbris & Montredon (1986:â•›73)
 Elements of meaning in gesture
2.1.3â•… Commentary on the object of the utterance 263 L’↜été dernier, [lateral head shake] on a bien travaillé.” (Last year, [lateral head shake] we worked well). Without saying a word, the speaker contradicts the previous statement that business was not good during the summer. 264 Let us analyse the dialogue “Ça va?” – “Ça va…” (OK? – OK…) accompanied by a head tilt performed by both participants (see Chapter 4, A selection of examples: head tilt): Combined with a rising intonation signalling a question “Ça va?” (OK?), the head tilt of the first participant analogically represents a caring relationship and thus turns the verbal enquiry into a pleasant question. Combined with a different intonation signalling a suspension “Ça va…” (OK…), the head tilt of the second participant no longer represents a caring relationship but a point of view equivalent to ‘from this angle’ it’s OK. Here, the head tilt is a sign of restriction that gesturally nuances the reply on which it comments: “OK” (that depends on the point of view). In both the question and the reply, the words and the gesture are similar. Only the intonation differs and transforms the first occurrence of “Ça va?” into a question and the second into a suspended response “Ça va…”. The intonation thus changes the meaning of the head tilt that, let us recall, is able to express several gestural signs, each based on a different analogical link (see Chapter 4, A selection of examples: head tilt): tilted toward the shoulder it represents tenderness or kindness (the gestural sign associated here with the question), or the angle of a different viewpoint to figuratively signify restriction (the gestural sign associated here with the reply). This mini-dialogue also demonstrates the interaction between the information conveyed via the different communication channels – verbal, vocal and gestural – that was discussed in Chapter 3 (see Figure 16. Interpretation of the gesture according to the contextual data).
2.2â•… Simultaneous complementary information When it occurs in synchrony with speech, gesture can convey complementary information that is more or less equivalent to what is said, thus avoiding a verbal repetition of synonyms that it replaces with a concrete and vibrant translation. Table 21 presents the whole message emitted simultaneously via the verbal channel (left column) and the kinesic channel* (right column) in the following examples: 265 *Je suis complètement obsédé, moi! (*I’↜m completely obsessed, me!: It’s the only thing on my mind). – Les partages, *on en parle à peine” (The apportionment *is hardly talked about: the question is vaguely touched on). – Parce que ce carcan assurerait *la cohésion sociale (Because this iron collar
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
is supposed to ensure *social cohesion: uniformity). – Giscard d’Estaing and Mitterrand qualifiés pour le deuxième tour, *c’↜est la première chose (Giscard d’↜Estaing and Mitterrand qualified for the second round, *that’s the first thing: that is something we can count on; Fr. ‘tabler sur’ is equivalent to ‘count on’ in this sense). – Mais pour *en deux mots (But to *in two words: to deal with it quickly). Table 21.╇ Simultaneous complementary information Speech
Gesture* Equivalent information:
*Je suis complètement obsédé, moi! *I’m completely obsessed, me! Les partages, *on en parle à peine The apportionment, *is hardly talked about, Parce que ce carcan assurerait *la cohésion sociale Because this iron collar is supposed to ensure *social cohesion G.E. et M. qualifiés pour le deuxième tour, *c’est la première chose. G.E and M. qualified for the second round, *that’s the first thing Mais pour *en deux mots. But to *in two words
The hand lifted to the forehead implies: It’s the only thing on my mind The wavy, lateral movement of the fingers signifies: The question is vaguely touched on Complementary information: The transverse movement of the Level Hand here represents a flat surface synonymous with uniformity The hand placed flat on the table complements: That is something we can count on (Fr. sur laquelle on peut ‘tabler’) The rapid outward projection of the fingers signifies: to deal with it quickly
Key. Right column, verbal translation of the sense of the gesture indicated in italics, e.g. “It’s the only thing on my mind”, under the description of the co-speech gesture, indicated by an asterisk (*) in the corresponding speech unit, left column. The duration of the gesture is indicated by the speech unit in italics, e.g. Je suis complètement obsédé.
2.3â•… Simultaneous pedagogical explanation When a speaker intends to explain something to his interlocutor, let us say that he has a ‘pedagogical’ aim in mind. We know that giving the visual representation of a spiral quickly helps to make it clear what a spiral staircase is. Hence, a speaker who feels the need for concrete clarification will visually explain what he is saying. Here are some examples: 266 During a television debate about nuclear terrorism twenty years ago, a scientist explains the action of centrifugal force separating elements of different density by giving a concrete situation as an example. He accompanies his explanation with a circular movement of the index finger directed downwards that draws a horizontal circle repeated on itself*: Eh bien disons, *ce sont un peu des écrémeuses (Ah well let’s say, *they’re a bit like creamers, i.e. machines that separate cream from milk).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
267 Here it is a question of Newton’s law. The gesture of the two fists facing each other that move apart and come together again* becomes the manifestation of this law of attraction: *c’↜est-à-dire la loi d’↜attirance entre les deux corps (*that is to say, the law of attraction between the two bodies). In these examples it seems as if “Eh bien disons” (Ah well let’s say) and “c’est-à-dire” (that is to say) both imply that the speaker’s gesture means “that is to show”. Gesture sometimes plays an involuntary pedagogical role. That is to say that the speaker does not intend to explain, but the concrete gestural representation of his idea may allow a less informed listener to guess the meaning of words unknown to him. 268 This could be the case for a French person of modest cultural background who hears intellectuals on television using sophisticated French words like anachronisme’ (anachronism), ‘par devers eux’ (in their possession), or ‘â•›logorrhée’ (logorrhoea) (see Table 22). The hands turning around each other give one to understand that ‘anachronisme’ signifies ‘a mix up’. – The action of manually gathering up the figuratively occupied space in front of oneself produces the meaning of ‘garder par devers soi’ (to keep in one’s possession). – The curved hand movement that begins at the mouth and projects outwards, repeated indefinitely in a vertical circle, represents the continuous flow of words coming out of a voluble mouth. This emblematic gesture of the figurative locution ‘un moulin à paroles’ (lit. a word-mill: a chatterbox) is a concrete and common equivalent of the intellectual term ‘logorrhée’. Table 22.╇ Simultaneous pedagogical explanation Speech
Gesture*
Ne pêchons pas *par anachronisme. Let’s not fall into *anachronism.
The hands turning around each other in vertical circles are synonymous here with a mix up. The hand in the frontal plane slides towards the speaker to signify in their possession.
Ce sont en général d’anciens soldats qui ont gardé leurs armes *par devers eux. They’re generally old soldiers who’ve kept their weapons *in their possession. Quand on entre *dans cette espèce de logorrhée When you fall *into this kind of logorrhoea
The repeated vertical circle of the hand in front of the mouth refers to a chatterbox (lit. a word-mill)
2.4â•… The simultaneous disambiguation of one sign by the other Besides its explanatory function, gesture can disambiguate a polysemous word by specifying the intended meaning. A good example of this is the clarification of the French word ‘régulier’ (regular) that has several meanings, each of which can be specified by a gesture (see Figure 83). “C’est pas régulier” (It’s not regular) can mean:
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
‘C’est pas cyclique’ (That is not cyclical), ‘C’est pas uniforme’ (That is not uniform) or ‘C’est pas réglementaire’ (That is not correct, in accordance with regulations). Each possible meaning can be specified by a gesture. Word
C’est pas régulier
C’est pas régulier
C’est pas régulier
Meaning
Cyclical, as specified by
Uniform, as shown by
Correct, in accordance with regulations, as indicated by
Gesture
(G1) the circular and repetitive movement of the hand drawing several vertical loops
(G2) the rather slow transverse movement of the Level Hand
(G3) the abrupt lowering of the edge of the Rigid Hand expresses the rigid and clear cut nature of regulations
Figure 83.╇ The disambiguation of a word by gesture (from Calbris 1990:╛185)
But each one of the three gestures (G1, G2, G3) is itself polysemous (see Table 23). Vertical loops (G1) can represent any of the following: something rolling up, a development, an evolution, a change, a repetition, or a linked succession. The representation of what could signify a repetition would lead one to interpret the word ‘régulier’ as a synonym of ‘cyclical’. Depending on its context of use, a transverse movement of the Level Hand (G2) can represent totality, directness, cutting, negation, or a flat smooth surface. The gesture confirms the uniform character that the word ‘régulier’ may signify due to its potential to represent a flat smooth surface. Lowering the edge of the hand in the sagittal plane (G3) may represent an obstacle, a division, rigid or categorical character, or cutting. The rigid and abrupt character of the gesture confirms that the word ‘régulier’ in this context means ‘correct, in accordance with regulations’. In short, one of the co-speech gesture’s significations comes to reinforce one of the word’s significations (in italics, Table 23). Paradoxically, the disambiguation results from the co-occurrence of two polysemies, one verbal and the other gestural. Table 23.╇ Two polysemies interact to obtain a single meaning (Calbris 1990:â•›186) Verbal polysemy
Gestural polysemy
Régulier: Cyclic, Uniform, Regulatory
(G1) vertical loops: rolling up, development, evolution, change, repetition, linked succession
Régulier: Cyclic, Uniform, Regulatory
(G2) transverse movement of the Level Hand: totality, directness, cutting, negation, flat, smooth, even surface
Régulier: Cyclic, Uniform, Regulatory
(G3) lowering edge of the Rigid Hand: obstacle, division, rectitude, cutting
 Elements of meaning in gesture
3.â•… A pre-verbal sign Let us imagine the audio-visual chain segmented into rhythmic-semantic groups as a number of verbal-gestural pairs that succeed one another. It may happen that the information conveyed by the gesture in one pair announces the information conveyed by the speech in the subsequent pair. The synchrony of the dual units is perfect, but without there being any synchrony in the respective pieces of information supplied. When gesture is co-verbal, the meaning expressed in the gesture often precedes the equivalent meaning expressed in words. Co-verbal, the gestural sign is pre-verbal: 269 In order to draw the attention of a group of students to the anticipatory role of gesture, I asked them to listen to the following sentence extracted from a television programme (video 62) and to perform a gesture they would make if they were the speaker: “Mais j’↜aimerais bien qu’↜on fasse en fait l’↜analyse là aussi: avantages, inconvénients” (But in fact I’d like an analysis to be made there too: advantages, disadvantages). Struck by the rhythm and the semantic dichotomy at the end, they proposed gestures that expressed a right/left opposition as a plausible accompaniment to the final segment of the utterance, with the right hand (re)presenting “advantages” and the left hand (re)presenting “disavantages”, which would result in the following: But in fact I’d like an analysis to be made there too: [right hand facing upwards] advantages [left hand facing upwards] disavantages. I had to tell them that the idea the speaker wanted to communicate was probably already present in his mind when he began speaking, and that analysis is a task of comparison requiring a certain amount of time, before someone eventually produced the gesture that was actually performed: the speaker literally weighs up the pros and cons for the duration of the whole sentence: [both hands flat, facing upwards, move alternately up and down] But in fact I’d like an analysis to be made there too: [right hand moves up] advantages, [left hand moves up] disavantages. In real life, when a listener sees a speaker physically weighting up pros and cons by alternately moving two flat hands, facing upwards, up and down*, like the scale pans of a balance, while saying “*Mais j’↜aimerais bien qu’↜on fasse en fait l’↜analyse là aussi”, he can anticipate what will be confirmed verbally: the pros (advantages) and the cons (disadvantages). In short, the interlocutor guesses the idea thanks to the speaker’s ideational gesture that weighs up the pros and cons; he could even finish the sentence for him. In Example 269, one witnesses the formation of thought during the course of the utterance, whereby the gesture forms the visual, sensori-motor ‘thought’ which anticipates the verbal expression of the concept.
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
3.1â•… The gesture-title In Example 270, a metaphoric gestural image summarizes the whole comment produced by this researcher in sociology: 270 [repeated forward movement of the Finger Pinch] si j’↜ai été capable, avec ou sans mon idéologie, je m’↜en fiche, [Finger Pinch downwards] si j’↜ai été capable [repeated once, eyes gazing into the distance] d’↜atteindre, [forward movement of the Finger Pinch, oriented as if to throw a dart, repeated three times] … [repeated twice to coincide with the two syllables of] le but. (video 63) [repeated forward movement of the Finger Pinch] if I was capable, with or without my ideology, I don’t give a damn, [Finger Pinch downwards] if I was capable [repeated once, eyes gazing into the distance] of attaining [repeated forward movement of the Finger Pinch, oriented as if to throw a dart, repeated three times] … [repeated twice to coincide with the two French syllables of le but] the target. The act of throwing a dart at a target mimed right at the beginning of the utterance summarizes the comment by concretely representing the desired concentration on the all-important objective. Here is another example of a gesture summarizing a situation. A guest on a literary television programme evokes a concrete situation: “Vous savez euh euh, je m’efforçais d’apprendre à taper à la machine à écrire à cette époque, et y avait une phrase qui disait…” (You know er, er, I was forcing myself to learn to type on a typewriter at that time, and there was a sentence that said…). An analysis of the gesture reveals that the speaker is visualizing himself sitting again in front of the typewriter: 271 [he mimes typing alternately with his two index fingers in the space in front of himself] Euh vous savez [repeatedly traces transverse lines with the right index finger] euh euh, [draws a series of loops in front of himself, symbolizing a progressive evolution] je m’↜efforçais d’↜apprendre à taper à la machine à écrire à cette époque [then types with his two index fingers again] et y avait une, une phrase qui disait… (video 64) [he mimes typing alternately with his two index fingers in the space in front of himself] Er you know [repeatedly traces transverse lines with the right index finger] er, er, [draws a series of loops in front of himself, symbolizing a progressive evolution] I was forcing myself to learn to type on a typewriter at that time [then types with his two index fingers again] and there was was a, a sentence that said…. Right from the start, he presents the situation as if he were physically Â�reliving it: mentally positioned in front of his typewriter, he types lines in front of himself alternately using his two index fingers to hit the imaginary keys.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
In Examples 270 and 271, the gesture that summarizes the situation frames the utterance and clearly anticipates verbalization (Calbris 1995). The gesture functions as a title by summarizing the comment right from the start.
3.2â•… An aid to verbalization When a speaker fails to express himself verbally, he either tends to admit that he is having difficulty in finding words or to compensate by showing what he wants to say. That is to say, he is led to gesturally represent either the fact that he is searching or what he is searching for. This is what Montes (1998) shows. He notes that in cases where a native speaker cannot adequately express what he is thinking during the course of an utterance, he will sometimes physically abstract himself from the dialogue situation in order to optimize his search for the right word: turning away his gaze, his fingers will formulate a word search in the form of an abstract object to be grasped. Vocal hesitation and the manual search continue until the right verbal expression is found. Montes (1998) also notes that gestural expression frequently anticipates verbal expression when a repair occurs. Examples 272–274 tend to show that gestural anticipation of the verbal formulation of the idea to be expressed is a phenomenon that is more common than one imagines. It is also interesting to point out that gesture is evidently used to assist verbalization during second-language acquisition (Kwon 1998). Furthermore, Hadar et al. (Gesture (2001) 1.2: 151–165) prove statistically that ideational gestures may frequently facilitate word retrieval in L2. If you only hear the verbal unit “Et le jour hein, où j’ai, euh” (And the day huh, when I, er) it only tells you that the speaker is searching for words. However, the video recording of the speaker producing this utterance shows that he has already manually formulated twice what he ends up saying in words: he moves his palm towards himself* twice, then repeats this gesture a third time while saying “introjeté hein, tous ces jugements qui viennent d’ailleurs” (introjected huh, all these judgements that come from elsewhere). One justifiably wonders if the gestural formulation of his idea during the verbal hesitation did not inspire his invention of the neologism “introjeté” (introjected): 272 Et le jour hein, *où j’↜ai, *euh: *introjeté hein, tous ces jugements qui viennent d’↜ailleurs (video 65) And on the day huh, *when I, *er: *introjected huh, all these judgements that come from elsewhere One sees that the speaker formulates the idea gesturally as soon as it appears in his mind and that he maintains or repeats the gesture representing his idea while he is searching for the verbal expression that corresponds to it exactly, in this case, a neologism in French, perhaps inspired by the English word ‘introject’. The word he creates
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
is actually a description of the gesture he performs: the outside (the judgement of others gradually) ‘thrown inside me’ (internalized). It seems as if the concrete representation of the idea materialized by the gesture facilitates its verbalization because the gesture is maintained until its role of ‘giving birth’ to a word has been fulfilled. And the speaker succeeds in expressing his original idea, which is an assimilation that he initially rejects: he ends up (“and on the day huh when”) by accepting to assimilate what was thrown into his face (“I introjected”), the judgements of others. Reconsidering only the speech in Example 273, without looking at the video images, one only hears oratorical precautions: “Et c’est dans ce sens, me semble-t-il, que quand même derrière tout cela, …” (And it’s in this sense, it seems to me, that even so behind all that, …). However, looking at the video images, one sees that, as the speaker is saying these words, he is gesturally formulating the idea of a united ensemble by sculpting the form of a globe with his hands (see Figure 84), an action which he then repeats, although with a smaller amplitude. The repeated gestural formulation of the idea punctuates the two rhythmic-semantic groups and anticipates the idea put into words in the last verbal unit. At this point, without repeating the gesture representing the globe, the speaker leans back again with his hands in the rest position to signal the end of his utterance and, by doing this, highlights its content: “il y a malgré tout une unité” (there is in spite of everything a unity). Idea of globality
beginning
end of the gesture “Et c’est dans ce sens, me semble-t-il” “And it’s in this sense, it seems to me” Figure 84.╇ Gestural formulation anticipating verbal formulation (Example 273)
 Elements of meaning in gesture
273 [face-to-face, the two concave palms sculpt a globe] Et c’↜est en ce sens, me semble-t-il, [sculpt a second, smaller globe, (Figure 84)] que quand même derrière tout cela, [the speaker leans back again, hands in the rest position] il y a malgré tout une unité. (video 66) [face-to-face, the two concave palms sculpt a globe] And it’s in this sense, it seems to me, [sculpt a second, smaller globe] that even so behind all that, [the speaker leans back again, hands in the rest position] there is in spite of everything a unity. The multichannel nature of the communication is highly evident in this example since both the acoustic and the visual channels are used in a complementary way during three fifths of the utterance: one is assigned the task of diplomacy, and the other is entrusted with the essential content. In other words, the idea of unity, present right from the start, is gesturalized in the form of a globe. The gesture is repeated in order to segment the rhythmic-semantic groups corresponding to the oratorical precautions (three fifths of the utterance). The multifunctionality of the gesture is equally evident since the significance of the globe, a referential gesture that segments and complements the simultaneous utterance, is only confirmed at the end (see below, Interplay between tension and relaxation in communicating information). Why, contrary to Example 272, was the gesture formulating the idea not repeated until the idea had been completely expressed? Let us suppose that this did happen by repeating the gesture a third time concurrently with the last verbal unit, and then compare the effects. The result shocks the French native speaker, who feels the need to modify the end of the utterance to say “il y a une unité” (there is a unity). This means that, in relation to a norm of maintaining the gesture for the entire duration of the expression of the idea, “[a third sculpting of the globe] there is a unity”, the effect of contrast obtained by suppressing the gesture correlates with the verbal contrast uttered, “[hands in the rest position] there is in spite of everything a unity”. There seems to be a semantic reason for suppressing the gesture, and an emphasis effect! Not maintaining the gesture for the duration of the expression of the idea leads to a different interpretation of the cognitive activity of the two communication partners, one which is more complex, lively, and interactive. –â•fi
Let us adopt the interlocutor’s viewpoint: the speaker sculpts, two times, a globe that does not represent what is being said simultaneously. He is therefore preparing himself to say something else that he has just begun to express, gesturally for the moment. The speaker has thus provoked a question in the mind of the interlocutor who tries to guess, while waiting for the solution, if this sphere represents a whole.
–â•fi
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
Let us now adopt the speaker’s viewpoint: engaged in his utterance act, he is nevertheless conscious of the cognitive activity that he is requiring of his interlocutor. He is aware of the faculties of the latter who is faced twice with a gestural riddle whose solution he is waiting for; the interlocutor must establish the link between the gestural sketch of the notion that he is trying to decode and the explicit expression that he is expecting to hear. Having provoked an expectation, the speaker knows that the interlocutor will establish the link between the notion’s two types of expression, the gestural sketch and the final precise verbal detail. The speaker has to explain the idea verbally, but he does not necessarily have to explain the link that he has temporally induced between the gestural and the verbal expressions of the idea. Independently, the interlocutor is capable of establishing the link between these bimodal expressions that are produced out of synchrony with each other.
This capacity of the interlocutor to link two asynchronous expressions of a idea allows the speaker to simultaneously introduce a new, gestural piece of information during the verbal expression: 274 On a euh [the speaker looks at his concave hands, face-to-face, moving apart (to represent encasing in an expanding container?)] par certains côtés, [repeated] on peut d’↜abord voir [then he presents his left palm to the interlocutor] un système gigogne One has er [the speaker looks at his concave hands, face-to-face, moving apart (to represent encasing in an expanding container?)] in some ways, [repeated] one can first of all see [then he presents his left palm to the interlocutor] a nesting system (see Figure 85, video 67). If we first analyse the gestures (G) and the speech (S) in Example 274, then consider the information they convey sequentially in tandem (G&S) (Figure 85), the whole message becomes: ‘(S1: verbal presentation …) One can first of all see (G1: … of the gesturalized idea); what I’m presenting to you: an expanding container; (G2: gestural presentation …) here’s the word for it: (S2: … of the verbalized idea) a nesting system’. The gesturalization of the idea (G1: ‘expanding container’) precedes its verbalization (S2: a nesting system). And notice the perfect chiasmus in the coupling of the pieces of information and of their referential and pedagogical roles: the gesturalization of the idea is presented verbally (One can first of all see), and then the verbalization of the idea (a nesting system) is presented gesturally. The speaker verbally prompts the interlocutor to look at the phenomenon that he is describing manually before offering him a verbal metaphoric definition of it. It is difficult to decide if (1) the metaphoric definition, available from the beginning of the utterance, is pedagogically explained by the gesture or if (2), lacking a specific term
 Elements of meaning in gesture
for the phenomenon, its manual description causes the emergence of its metaphoric �definition, suddenly offered to the interlocutor, or if (1&2), being pedagogically good and reconciling the two versions, the speakeractor play-acts the discovery.
beginning
end of the gesture
Speech:
On peut d’abord voir One can first of all see
un système gigogne a nesting system
Gesture: signifying:
(G1) concave hands moving apart ‘expanding container’
(G2) left palm extended towards X designation (of the word) to X
Gesture & Speech
Verbal announcement (S1) of the gestural representation of a nesting system (G1)
Gestural designation (G2) of the retrieved word (S2)
Key. G: Gesture. S: Speech Figure 85.╇ An aid to verbalization (Example 274)
Why this order and this staging? As the production of this utterance involves a certain amount of creativity, a transfer of a known metaphor from the concrete domain (nesting tables, or Russian nesting dolls) to the abstract domain, one can suppose that the verbal encoding of the idea is not directly accessible to the speaker, even though the idea is mentally visible to him and concretely communicable. He therefore gesturalizes it right away in order to concretely maintain its presence in his mind while he is defining it verbally. Its gestural formulation serves as a sketch for the interlocutor, hence engaging his interest in the utterance process. There is a moment of suspense for both communication partners in resolving this problem of identification – verbal identification for the speaker, referential identification for the interlocutor – whose final resolution in the discovery of the word is physically offered to the interlocutor. In short, the gesturalization of the idea here seems to be used to aid verbalization insofar as the gestural formulation anticipates the verbal formulation, and the latter, being uncommon, is presented as a resolution of the suspense. The cognitive task concerns both
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
communication partners. The person expressing his thought is facing another person and not a blank sheet of paper. It is evident in these three examples that gesture anticipates speech in the expression of an idea. In all three cases, note that the word to be produced either had to be invented (‘introjeter’ is a neologism), transposed (‘système gigogne’ is given a new sense), or highlighted (a unity), rather than simply retrieved. Should one interpret this gestural anticipation of speech as an aid to verbal encoding? Taking into account the communication partner, should one interpret the gestural anticipation of speech as a device, a guessing game in which the interlocutor has to discover the referent? These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive. The gestural pre-verbal sketch serves both partners. It serves the speaker as he is searching for the complete, precise expression of his idea. But it also serves the interlocutor who is seeing the gesture as a sketch of the idea that is being formulated, and who may use this as a basis for surmising what the final ‘drawing’ will be like, that is, the idea in its more complete, verbal formulation. Moreover, the speaker can exploit the interlocutor’s capacity to anticipate, to guess what the verbal utterance will be. He is just counting on a communally shared competence acquired by switching between the roles of speaker and interlocutor. The interplay between the gestural and verbal information becomes a pedagogical, effective, intellectual game between the partners.
3.3â•… Interplay between tension and relaxation in communicating information In the relatively frequent case of gestural formulation anticipating verbal information one witnesses an intellectual game of switching between the two information channels, alternating intellectual tension and relaxation for the interlocutor. Let us take as an example the case of a technician interviewed about construction work at the Musée d’Orsay, which he metaphorically refers to as a boat on the banks of the Seine: 275 Ces micropieux sont ancrés dans le calcaire que l’↜on retrouve sous le musée pour empêcher le bateau de se soulever avec la montée des crues. (video 68) These micropiles are anchored in the limestone that one finds under the museum in order to prevent the boat from rising with the rise of flood waters. Stripped of its nouns (micropiles; limestone; museum; boat; flood waters), the text is reduced to a skeleton that the gesture articulates: ‘That anchored in that under that raised by that’. Gestures account for forms, localizations, and movements; here, they account for the anchorage, its localization, and the rising movement. The anchorage is represented by the thumb and the index finger directed outwards like hooks to be driven in (1). The localization ‘under’ is represented by lowering the palms facing downwards (2). The
 Elements of meaning in gesture
rising movement is represented by raising the palms facing upwards (3). Each new type of gesture (1, 2, 3) introduces a new rhythmic-semantic group. The repetition of each gesture segments each group into subgroups of meaning: Ces micropieux These micropiles (1) que l’on retrouve that one finds (2) pour empêcher le bateau in order to prevent the boat (3)
sont ancrés dans le calcaire are anchored in the limestone (1) second time (1) third time sous le musée under the museum (2) second time de se soulever avec la montée des crues from rising with the rise of flood waters (3) second time
If we compare the information conveyed simultaneously by speech and gesture in each rhythmic-semantic subgroup (A, B, C), we see that the gestural information Â�precedes the verbal information on the temporal axis (see Table 24). The hooks drawn by gesture (1) in A are hooked in during the utterance “are anchored” in B. The Â�localization ‘under’ conveyed by gesture (2) in A is confirmed verbally by “under” conveyed by speech in B. The ‘rising’ signified by the gesture (3) in A is confirmed by the subsequent word “rising” uttered in B. Table 24.╇ Interplay of tension-relaxation between gestural and verbal information A
B
C
Ces micropieux These micropiles (1) hooks
sont ancrés are anchored hooked in
dans le calcaire, in the limestone hooked in
que l’on retrouve that one finds (2) under
sous under under
le musée, the museum –
pour empêcher in order to prevent (3) rising
le bateau the boat
de se soulever avec from rising with rising
la montée des crues the rise of flood waters –
A, B, C: rhythmic-semantic subgroups 1, 2, 3: each new type of gesture, accompanied by its contextual meaning Underlined: Gestural information anticipating verbal information
Each gesture is repeated in order to assume a demarcative function without leading to excessive redundancy in the information simultaneously conveyed by gesture and the voice. In B–C, for example, the verbal confirmation of the gestural information conveyed by A is complemented by a new element of verbal information. This process that alternates tension and relaxation in the information flow is repeated all along the sequence:
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
275 [thumb and index finger in parallel directed outwards like hooks] Ces micropieux, [gesture repeated] sont ancrés…, [hands facing downwards are lowered] que l’↜on retrouve, [gesture repeated] sous…, [hands facing upwards are raised] pour empêcher le bateau, [gesture repeated] de se soulever avec…. The complete verbalization of the bi-channel message could be “These micropiles (are anchored in?) are anchored… in the limestone, that one finds (under?) under… the museum, in order to prevent (the rising of?) the boat, from rising with… the rise of flood waters”. Furthermore, the repeated gestures are not identical. Their modulation allows progression in the visual information they offer (see Table 25). One sees progressively greater precision in the modulated repetition of gesture (1) (thumb and index finger form hooks): the hooks, hooked into a lower position, are hooked into ‘that’. The modulated repetition of gesture (2) (hands facing downwards) specifies further: under, underneath ‘that’. That of gesture (3) (hands facing upwards) specifies further: the rising, of this hull, enveloped in a rising mass. Table 25.╇ Cumulation of the functions of gestures slightly modified by repetition Speech Gestures (1)
Ces micropieux These micropiles Thumb and index finger hooked and raised to head level,
sont ancrés are anchored lowered to shoulder level,
dans le calcaire in the limestone advanced at chest level
meaning
Hooks
hooked lower
hooked into that
Speech
que l’on retrouve that one finds Hands facing downwards lowered to the waist, under
sous under then lower,
le musée the museum arms lowered, hands joined together –
Gestures (2) meaning Speech Gestures (3)
pour empêcher in order to prevent Hands facing upwards raised high to eye level,
meaning
rising
Speech
la montée des crues. the rise of flood waters. arms lowered, hands joined together
Gesture (3)
underneath that le bateau the boat lowered again, drawn together to form a hull at chest level, of this hull
de se soulever avec from rising with then drawn apart raised again to head level enveloped in a rising mass
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Thus, the contribution of the gestural information, that is both synthetic and precise, comes to complement the spoken word (see Figure 86). Performed first, the gestures announce the verbal information. Their repetition serves to segment the speech stream into rhythmic-semantic subgroups, whereas their modulation in the repetition enriches the spoken words with a visual demonstration carrying new information. For instance, the complete verbalization of the bi-channel message presented Table 25 could be: “These micropiles (are anchored in?) – are anchored (anchored lower) – (into that) in the limestone – that one finds (under?) – under (under lower)the museum (gesture pause) – in order to prevent (the rising?) – (of this hull) the boat – (enveloped in a rising mass) from rising with – the rise of flood waters Â�(gesture pause)”. In doing so, the gesture cumulates the following functions: referential, Â�predictive, demarcative, and pedagogical. So, the anticipatory and complementary gestural information creates tensionrelaxation in the bimodal information progressively communicated, as the illustrated sample from the end of the sentence shows (see Figure 86): the gestural information that is given is later confirmed by the verbal information: ‘rising’ → rising; ‘enveloped in a rising mass’ → (with) the rise of flood waters. pour empêcher in order to prevent
‘rising Example 280, Gestures (3): Hands facing upwards raised high to eye level,
le bateau the boat
de se soulever avec from rising with
of this hull
enveloped in a rising mass’
lowered again, drawn together to form a hull at chest level,
then drawn apart raised again to head level
la montée des crues the rise of flood waters.
arms lowered, hands joined together
Figure 86.╇ Tension-relaxation in the bimodal information progressively communicated
The above examples show that an idea is often expressed gesturally before being uttered verbally (Freedman 1977; Calbris 1995). In other words, the physical gestural and verbal units (or the visual-gestural and audio-oral units) are synchronous, but their respective meanings are not: the semantic gestural and verbal units convey the idea across two temporal units that are out of synchrony with each other, whereby the gesture serves an utterance function for the speaker and possibly a predictive one for the listener who, in the second unit, will receive a verbal confirmation of the gestural information emitted in the first unit.
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
3.4â•… Hypotheses on gesture anticipating speech The referential function is served by gesture and speech by using the kinesic and verbal channels respectively (see Chapter 2, Table 5). Kinesic expression is visual, concrete, and synthetic in that it synthesizes information from more that one source. It is synthetic in two ways. A kinesic ensemble cumulates information presented simultaneously by actions in different body parts, as in the combination of a manual gesture, with a head gesture and facial expression. But a given manual gesture may also cumulate information provided by its different components (see Chapter 7, The polysign gesture). Verbal expression, on the other hand, is only composed of juxtaposed acoustic elements. In this case, is there a simple physical reason for gestural anticipation? Is synthetic gestural expression processed faster than linear verbal expression? Or is there perhaps a psychological reason for it? Indeed, kinesic expression is analogue and concrete, whereas verbal expression is abstract. In children, vocal and mimetic-gestural expression precedes the acquisition of verbal expression. The abstract is derived from the concrete. Insofar as the adult maintains this archaic preverbal form of expression while speaking, we see an ‘actogenesis’ of language taking place in utterance production. Gesture production is an actogenetic process which seems to recapitulate a kind of ontogenetic process which itself recapitulates a phylogenetic process. As an integral part of the process of verbalization, gesture maintains its pre-verbal status. If, as evidenced by semiotic analysis, gesture is the expression of an intermediary perceptual schema between the concrete and the abstract, then it presents the visible form, the idea of the referent, and remains a sketch that is completed by verbal expression. The psychological, cognitive, semiotic, and even pedagogical reasons for gestural anticipation are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, thanks to the kinesic gestural referent anticipating the verbal referent, one observes a rather intellectual, temporal, dialectic interaction between the pieces of information emitted over each channel (see above, Interplay between tension and relaxation in communicating information). As we shall see next, the kinesic referent is physical, visual, concrete, and synthetic for the speaker. For the interlocutor, it is polysemous. Let us put ourselves in the position of the speaker. An idea emerges that is synthetic, imperfect, and readily gesturalized. It is possible that a gesture promotes its rendering into words by concretely maintaining the idea in his mind. Furthermore, it is the only translator and the only evidence of mental imagery during speech production. The gestural expression shows the essential idea (see above, The gesture-title), whereas the repetition of the gesture formulating the idea punctuates the sentence that explains the idea. While summarizing the statement whose verbalization it is punctuating, the referential gesture enriches the expression. It allows one to see either the concrete situation relived, or the mental imagery underlying the abstraction. These concrete data that are signified before being verbalized are generally produced and perceived in a non-conscious way.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Let us put ourselves in the position of the interlocutor. The speaker’s physical, concrete, gestural information that enables him to see what is being relived or imagined can favour his understanding and memorization of the message. Obeying the principle of economy of information simultaneously emitted over two channels, the gesturalized information comes to comment on, to ‘paraphrase’ the verbal information that is given to him. Finally, the gestural sign’s anticipation enables him to guess or to surmise what is going to be said. This non-conscious guessing game of anticipation about what is going to be confirmed verbally (is that really what he wants to say?) prevents him from being passive and involves him in the utterance process. By participating through empathy in the elaboration of the content, he is in a certain way captivated by the speaker. He participates in the ongoing act of thinking without being irritated by hesitations, the favourable moments for gestural formulations, or by verbal repetitions complemented by simultaneous gestural information. A hypothesis can be formulated about the relation between the gestural anticipation of speech and the type of mental images involved. The reasoning is based on a possible correlation between the different types of image and the difficulty of encoding them verbally (Calbris 1998). An original mental image, being initially more difficult to encode verbally (V), would be formulated gesturally (G) so that its presence in the mind can be maintained concretely for the duration of the verbal formulation. For a fairly uncommon image, i.e. a metaphoric extension or a particular mental image whose verbalization is not automatically available, anticipatory gesturalization would serve as an aid to verbalization, G → V (see Table 26, left column). Inversely, in the case of a known, commonly shared mental image transformed into a figurative locution, the initially unsynchronized association between gesturalization (G) and verbalization (V) would be readily transformed into a synchronous ensemble due to its frequency of use (Table 26, central column). The speaker-gesturer is no longer conscious of the analogical link contained in the figurative locution that he is uttering, or of the gestural representation that he is in the process of making. Habit and automaticity have lowered his level of consciousness (Table 26, right column). Table 26.╇ Relation between the gestural anticipation of speech and the type of mental imagery G→V
Anticipation of gesture for original images
V | G Simultaneity of gesture for common images
Key. G: Gesturalization. V: Verbalization
V G Non-consciousness of simultaneous gesture
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
By passing from the original image to the common image, one shifts from anticipation to simultaneity and to non-consciousness of gesture. The general rule would be gestural anticipation of speech for original images, and simultaneity of gestural and verbal formulations for figurative locutions. Exceptional cases of gestural anticipation for figurative locutions would be explained either by a splitting of the gesturalization of the mental image into two gestures, or by a concern for greater expressivity. These would be the only reasons that may provoke gestural anticipation in the case of figurative locutions. The phenomenon of the gestural anticipation of speech with respect to the referential function, i.e. the gestural expression of a notion anticipating its verbal expression during the utterance process, is for Fonagy (2000:â•›580–1) just the ultimate extension of the essentially pre-verbal character of gesture that one recognizes in the ontogenesis of language and which may possibly stem from its phylogenetic source. Observed in children, the pre-verbal character of co-speech gesture is maintained into adulthood, regardless of the function it serves. Thus, gestures that are used in certain cases to discharge psychological tension recall the struggling of the violent and uncoordinated infant. The hearer-oriented gestures that serve a phatic or conative function appear like traces of the new-born baby’s innate reflex of grasping his mother (Hermann 1936). Likewise, the self-oriented gestures, ‘grooming self-adaptors’ for Ekman & Friesen (1969:â•›85), ‘self-contact gestures’ for Morris (1977:â•›103–6), are relics of the period of primary narcissism (Freud 1914). The pre-verbal character of co-speech gesture in respect of its referential function ultimately indicates the eminently pre-verbal character of gesture, which researches into language disorders,6 moreover, confirm.
4.â•… The interactive construction of meaning by the two types of sign In an economical way, a speaker’s message is simultaneously communicated by the verbal and the gestural channels and is interpreted by comparing them. There is interplay between the pieces of information coming in from the two channels. Example 276 given below was produced by a politician who was in the opposition at the time of the interview: 276 [the left index finger inclines the ear pinna forwards as if to hear better] Et depuis un an, [then the left hand forms the Palm Forwards configuration]
.╅ The ontogenetic priority of gestures versus words is reflected in researches of speech disorders in which co-speech gestures are shown to be persist in patients with aphasia (Daniloff et al. 1982, Christopolou & Bonvillian 1985).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
j’↜attends les actes: [both hands transformed into the Ring configuration, side by side, symmetrically draw a transverse line] je n’↜ai rien trouvé. [the left index finger inclines the ear pinna forwards as if to hear better] And for a year, [then the left hand forms the Palm Forwards configuration] I’ve been waiting for actions: [both hands transformed into the Ring configuration, side by side, symmetrically draw a transverse line] I’ve found nothing.7 Each of the three gestures that cut the sentence into rhythmic-semantic groups conveys a complementary piece of information to a corresponding group. Figure 87 details the process of constructing the meaning of the message. Derived from action, the gesture of placing the index finger behind the ear, pushing the pinna forwards, when seen out of context, means something like ‘to hear better’. When, as in this instance, it co-occurs with the phrase “Et depuis un an” (And for a year) its meaning changes to suggest the idea of a watchdog with his ears pricked up and thus to refer to the figurative French locution ‘tendre l’oreille’ (to prick up one’s ears). The Palm Forwards gesture that follows, which as we have already seen may be derived from a self-protective reflex, is essentially a defensive stop. In this context, it signifies that the person has been waiting on standby, immobile, for a year. The last gesture is a polysign. Let us consider its gestural components and their possible meanings out of context. The Ring gesture used to grasp a very small object refers to something minuscule and precise. The transverse movement that symmetrically sweeps the horizon could signify ‘everywhere’. Out of context, the gestural meanings ‘minuscule’ and ‘everywhere’, combined with the verbal context “je n’ai rien trouvé” (I’ve found nothing) become, respectively, ‘not the least little thing’ and ‘nowhere’. The meaning of an utterance is constructed by successively comparing the pieces of information. First of all, the comparison between the possible meanings of the gesture out of context and the verbal message allows us to specify the gestural meaning in context. The subsequent interaction between the gestural meaning in context and the meaning of the verbal message produces the total message (verbal-gestural), whose translation would yield this: “And for a year” I’ve been pricking up my ears, immobile “I’ve been waiting for actions: I’ve found absolutely and strictly nothing”. The gestural contribution confirms the implied metaphor of the alert and motionless watchdog. The referential function is performed by the two channels in interaction.8
.â•… Promises have been made that something will be done but, according to the speaker’s media searches, so far nothing has happened. .â•… The semantic interaction of gesture and speech in situations referring to the concrete reported by Kendon (2004a:â•›158–175) is developed here in the abstract domain.
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
Speech:
Et depuis un an And for a year
j’ attends les actes: I’ve been waiting for actions
je n’ ai rien trouvé I’ve found nothing
Gesture:
index finger inclines the ear pinna forwards
Palm Forwards
rapid symmetrical transverse movement of two Ring configurations
Stop-prudence Waiting, Immobile
Everywhere, Minuscule Absolutely, Strictly
Gestural meaning – out of context: to hear better ‘To prick up one’s ears’ – in context:
beginning
end of gesture Verbal-gestural meaning
And for a year I’ ve pricked up my ears'
I’ ve been waiting for actions immobile
I’ ve found nothing absolutely & strictly
Figure 87.╇ Interactive construction of meaning by the two types of sign (Example 276)
The text of the following utterance is particularly enigmatic: “Les Allemands nous ont précédés dans le domaine des 35 heures. Nous faisons ces propositions, effectivement” (lit. The Germans have preceded us in the domain of the 35 hours, (meaning that they are ahead of us with regard to introducing the 35-hour working week). We are making these proposals, in fact). Verbally elliptic, the message makes sense only if one is also able to see the speaker and the gestures that he makes.9 Here are the missing gestural pieces of information that are simultaneously given: 277 [the edge of the left Rigid Hand draws a diagonal line that goes forwards and to the left] Les Allemands nous ont précédés dans le domaine des 35 heures. [repeated a second time, the edge of the left hand redraws the same trajectory] Nous faisons ces propositions, effectivement.
.â•… This example confirms the idea proposed by Kendon that “gesture is often an integral component of utterance construction” (2004b:â•›99–100).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
[the edge of the left Rigid Hand draws a diagonal line that goes forwards and to the left] The Germans have preceded us in the domain of the 35 hours [repeated a second time, the edge of the left hand redraws the same trajectory] We are making these proposals, in fact. The repetition of the same gesture correlated with the utterance yields: [G] a path traced…, by the Germans “The Germans have preceded us,” [G repeated a second time] the path faithfully taken up…, by the French “We are making these proposals”. The repetition of the gesture signifies the repetition of the action: ‘we’re doing the same as they are’. It is this gestural meaning that the words “in fact” subsequently come to complement: “We are making these proposals” ‘like them’ in fact. Here we have a beautiful example of a semantic construction created via feedback between two pieces of gestural information (same action), on the one hand, and via interaction between gestural and verbal pieces of information (same action, “in fact”), on the other. Note in passing that in this case it is no longer a gesture that comments on a verbal meaning (see above, Simultaneous gestural commentary) but, rather, a word that comments on a gestural meaning. Let us try to analyse how the bimodal interactive game of linking successive pieces of information across the two modalities, gesture and speech, works. It appears that an interaction between the information conveyed in the first verbal-gestural pair triggers a reaction which determines how information is distributed between the two modalities in the next verbal-gestural pair. For instance, in Example 277, the pieces of information that are conveyed simultaneously are mutually determined, they complement one another, but they create an informational imbalance. This moment of imbalance in the way that information is distributed between the two modalities, and from which a new utterance sequence originates, would correspond to the dialectical interchange between imagistic thinking and linguistic categorial thinking that McNeill (2005) has described as a Growth Point which is ‘unpacked’ as an utterance is produced. In Example 277, one initially observes that the first gesture – namely the edge of the left Rigid Hand advancing diagonally to the left – indicates that the utterance will not end after “The Germans have preceded us in the domain of the 35 hours”. At first sight, it does not represent the temporal relation between the actions of the two entities, the Germans and the French. If that were the case, the edges of both Rigid Hands, positioned one in front of the other, would have to follow each other simultaneously, their spatial relation representing the temporal relation to be signified, because the first people to take a path are necessarily and physically in front of those who follow them. In fact, during the first verbal segment, the speaker only represents the beginning of the temporal relation given “The Germans have preceded us”, a relation that he
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
will then represent a second time. He has spontaneously programmed a constructive interaction between the gestural and verbal pieces of information, which we shall now consider step by step, beginning with the first gesture. The first gesture is performed with the left hand, on the side symbolically associated with anteriority; it draws a diagonal line oriented forwards. Its meaning is equivalent to ‘to have gone towards’. When correlated with the simultaneously uttered text “The Germans have preceded us”, the meaning of the gesture is specified ‘they’ve taken the path towards, they’re pursuing the objective (of the 35-hour working week)’. At the same time as representing ‘they’ve taken the path towards’, the speaker says “The Germans have preceded us”. This therefore means to say that the path is going to be taken again by others, namely ‘us’. The use of the verb ‘to precede’ obliges the speaker to repeat the gesture that, correlated with the second rhythmic group “We are making these proposals”, comes to signify ‘we’re taking the same path’. The correlation of the two pieces of information results in ‘we’re also doing what they’re doing’. The statement ‘like them’, for the moment implied because it has only been formulated by the gesture, has to be explained verbally, which is what the last word “in fact” does. This gestural representation of the French follow-my-leader attitude, which is temporally divided into two parts, allows the following functions to be served concurrently: a demarcative function that divides the two verbal units, a referential function complementary to that of the verbal utterance, and a pedagogical function by provoking the interlocutor to wonder about what will come next in the utterance. It also determines the speaker’s choice of modality, verbal or gestural, for expressing the elements of information that are to follow and thus serves an utterance function. The analysis shows that at each step of the utterance process, and bearing in mind what he wants to express, the speaker chooses the most fitting distribution of the elements of the information stream across the two modalities of speech and gesture.
5.â•… An example of the relations between gesture and speech The following analysis will allow us to summarize the relations that gesture and speech maintain during the course of utterance production, on both the temporal and the semantic levels. In order to identify the gestural referent, it is necessary to judiciously isolate the gestural unit from the continuum of kinesic action and to interpret it in relation to the context, i.e. in relation to the information conveyed by the verbal channel, the vocal channel, and the other elements in the kinesic channel. Once the gestural unit has
 Elements of meaning in gesture
been identified, the types of relations it maintains with the verbal referent can then be analysed. Depending on the case and the temporal segmentation of the gestural-verbal continuum, these may be relations of complementarity, redundancy, anticipation, or relay transmission. In the case given below, we shall see the gesture pre-formulating the utterance and disambiguating it.
5.1â•… Segmentation of the continuum into gestural-verbal temporal units The utterance discussed here is extracted from a corpus composed of fragments of interviews with French intellectuals. One of them, a professor at one of the universities for science and education, is being interviewed at home on the subject of student evaluation. Comfortably sitting on a smooth leather sofa, we see him say: 278 Ce n’↜est que la moyenne entre les notes, c’↜est pas la moyenne des, des notes des différents élèves, mais ça, c’↜est une parenthèse (video 69) It’s only the average between the marks, it’s not the average of the, of the marks of the different pupils, but that, that’s a (lit.) parenthesis (side comment) Table 27 gives a visual presentation of the analysis of Example 278 showing the hierarchic segmentation of the utterance that the gestures create: a series of gestures (1&2) followed by a pause (3) coinciding with the explanation, then a new gesture (4) followed by a pause (5) coinciding with the final remark. The explanation is itself cut in two by a change in the type of gesture: a straight line for (1) “Ce n’est que la moyenne entre les notes” (It’s only the average between the marks), then a curved line for (2) “c’est pas la moyenne des notes” (it’s not the average of the marks). Each verbal unit is further cut in two by the repetition of the gesture: “[straight-line gesture] Ce n’est que la moyenne [repeated] entre les notes”; “[curved-line gesture] c’est pas la moyenne des [repeated] des notes”. Table 27.╇ Hierarchic segmentation of the gestural-verbal temporal units Units
1
2
gestural
straight-line:
curved-line:
verbal
3
4
5
gesture
repeated gesture
(pause in gesture of (pause in gestural rejection gestural repeated flow) flow)
moyenne
entre notes
moyenne
des notes
average
between marks
average
of the marks
des différents élèves of the different pupils
mais ça,
c’est une parenthèse
but that,
that’s a parenthesis
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
Segmentation depends on changes occurring in the elements in the gesture’s composition; this may apply to the movement, the hand configuration, or the localization of the gesture. Thus, the vertical hand executes repeated straight-line movements on the sofa (1) and then repeated curved-line movements, still on the sofa (2). The orientation of the palm becomes horizontal and rubs against the sofa (3), before lifting to make a quick movement in the air (4), followed by another horizontal rub against the sofa (5). The first two temporal units are each subdivided in turn by the repetition of a gesture, continued in 1, and re-sketched in 2. For example: 1. The speaker moves the edge of the left Rigid Hand on the sofa in a lateral sweeping motion, back and forth, three times to the rapid rhythm of the utterance: “ce n’est que la moyenne entre les notes” (It’s not just the average between the marks). The movement to and fro between left and right (|| left ← | → right ||) respects the segmentation of the rhythmic-semantic verbal groups, generally executed in a bisyllabic rhythm: || ce ← | → n’est || que la ← | → moye(n) || n(e)entre ← | → les not(es) || 2. The configuration of the palm becomes curved and the edge of the hand draws a horizontal circle on the sofa concurrent with “c’est pas la moyenne des” (it’s not the average of the), followed by a horizontal semicircle concurrent with the three syllables “des notes heu” (of the marks er). 3. The idea of an ensemble has just been drawn. Its verbal confirmation “des différents élèves” (of the different pupils) is accompanied by a rubbing motion of the palm on the sofa, which is interpreted here not as a gestural unit, but as a movement that fills a pause in the gestural flow. During the utterance of the last word, the elbow is lifted while the forearm is rotated leftwards to prepare for the next gesture. 4. The rapid lateral sweeping motion of the palm to the left that rejects sideways during the utterance of “mais ça” is sufficient to express the idea “but that, (we don’t want any of that)”. Particularly expressive, this gesture equivalent to ‘put that to one side’ precedes a different, metaphoric, euphemistic verbalization of the same idea, ‘c’est une parenthèse’ (that’s a parenthesis, a side comment). 5. As the idea has already been formulated gesturally, the complementary verbalization “c’est une parenthèse” is accompanied by a simple non-referential movement of the palm stroking and kneading the sofa in a rhythm, signalling the end of the utterance. In Example 278 one observes a hierarchic segmentation of the sentence (see Table 27). The highest level of temporal unit, characterized by an alternation between a gesture and a ‘filler movement’ (pause in the gestural flow), creates points of insertion for the units delimited by a change of gesture type (straight line/curved line). Each one of them is in turn subdivided by the repetition of a gesture.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Furthermore, the verbal flow and the gestural flow are constantly coordinated, thus creating rhythm in the speech stream and demonstrating that a representational gesture may serve two functions at the same time: the referential function and the demarcative function. It is often multifunctional. Let us reconsider temporal unit 2: the horizontal circle gesture, here synonymous with ‘ensemble’, accompanies a verbal unit of six syllables “c’est – pas – la – moy – enne – des…” and a semicircle gesture accompanies the three syllables “des – no – tes heu”. The repeated gesture is modified in order to remain synchronous with the rhythmicsemantic verbal groups. The phenomenon of auto-synchrony recurs constantly.
5.2â•… Identification of the co-speech gestural referent The process of creating reference gesturally is essentially context dependent. A gesture is the source of multiple meanings and only acquires a particular meaning in context (see Figure 88). Everything functions as if the verbal information comes to activate and select one of the possible meanings of the gesture originating from one or another of its physical-symbolic (sub)components. We thus talk about the co-speech gestural referent interpreted in relation to the verbal utterance. This co-speech gestural referent is then going to interact with the verbal referent, anticipate it, render it more precise, and complement it. Gesture out of context: ambiguous
→
Co-speech gesture
←
Speech
↔
Verbal referent
in context: univocal Gestural referent
Figure 88.╇ Identification of the co-speech gestural referent
For instance, the horizontal circle of the hand on the sofa in temporal unit 2 of Example 278 could, in other verbal contexts, represent any of the following: a round point, a place, skirting around an issue, encircling, a circle of friends, or a selfsufficient operation. Correlated with the verbal context “c’est pas la moyenne des (notes)”, it represents an ensemble. The total message becomes ‘it’s not the average of the ensemble of the marks’; it explains the notion of arithmetic average. Likewise, in temporal unit 1, the transverse sweeping of the edge of the hand could, in other verbal contexts, evoke an interval – concrete, abstract, or temporal – or an approximate margin. In relation to the utterance “ce n’est que la moyenne entre les notes”, it will evoke the value between the extremes. As in the case above, the co-speech gestural referent comes to complement the verbal referent: one understands that it concerns the mark situated at equal distance between the extremes 0 and 20, i.e. the geometric average.
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
In itself ambiguous, the word ‘average’ is disambiguated; one of its possible meanings is specified by two different gestures, each of which, out of context, is itself ambiguous, rich in a multiplicity of possible meanings. We are faced with a reciprocal disambiguation of gesture by speech and of speech by gesture (see above, The simultaneous disambiguation of one sign by the other).
5.3╅ The co-speech gestural referent anticipates the verbal referent Table 28 presents the corresponding units of meaning conveyed respectively by speech (S) and gesture (G) in the temporal units (1 2 3 4 5). One observes that the gestural formulation anticipates the verbal formulation more or less clearly but constantly. Table 28.╇ The co-speech gestural referent anticipates the verbal referent Units
1
Speech
moyenne average
entre notes between marks
2
3
4
5
pas moyenne des notes
des élèves
mais ça,
not average
of the pupils
but that
c’est une parenthèse that’s a parenthesis
of the marks
Gesture
‘of the interval’ anticipates: entre notes
‘of the ensemble’ anticipates: des notes
Gesture & Speech
Geometric average
Arithmetic average
verbally confirmed
verbally confirmed
des élèves
‘put to one side’ anticipates: c’est une parenthèse Put to one side
verbally confirmed
In (1), thanks to the verbal unit “ce n’est que la moyenne” accompanied by a repeated sweeping movement of the vertical hand between two limits, the notion of geometric average has already been guessed before being confirmed verbally, “entre les notes”. Likewise, in (2), associated with “c’est pas la moyenne des”, the manual drawing of a circle gives one to understand ‘of the ensemble of the marks’ before this is confirmed by “des notes heu des différents élèves”. Even more clearly, the gesture of rejection to the side using the palm during “mais ça” implies ‘brushing aside’ before the idea is explicitly expressed orally by a verbal metaphor, “c’est une parenthèse” (4 and 5). Thus, oral expression brings together the analogical gestural symbol and the arbitrary verbal symbol, the former preceding the latter. Their semantic relation is a relation of reciprocal disambiguation, bordering on complementarity. Holler and Beattie (2003) have shown in an experimental study how a gesture can function to disambiguate the meanings of ambiguous words. They compare this pedagogical role of gesture, exercised for the benefit of the interlocutor, to its expressive role, exercised for the benefit of the speaker, which reveals certain aspects of the mental image that are not verbalized by the speaker (McNeill 1985, 1992, 2000). The two roles are not mutually exclusive but combinable. In real-life situations during spontaneous conversation, the speaker may well express a subjective mental image, certain
 Elements of meaning in gesture
aspects of which are expressed gesturally, to prevent a possible confusion on the part of the interlocutor. As chance would have it, two speakers, ten years apart, needed to insist on the difference between the arithmetic average and the geometric average. We have just discussed how this was expressed by a university professor (1) talking about evaluation in 1990. Ten years earlier, a journalist and television presenter (2), had made the same distinction while talking about the “median” salary: 279 […] du salaire médian, [his Level Hands oscillate alternately up and down] c’↜est-à-dire pas le salaire moyen, [then are brought to face each other, pointing forwards, forming a perpendicular bisector in front of his chest] mais au milieu. […] of the median salary, [his Level Hands oscillate alternately up and down] that is to say, not the average salary, [then are brought to face each other, pointing forwards, forming a perpendicular bisector in front of his chest] but in the middle. The alternating movement of the two hands refers to a distinction made between salary levels – the low salaries in the left hand, and the high salaries in the right hand – weighed up respectively, physically evaluated by each palm searching for equilibrium: the arithmetic average of the ensemble of the low and high salaries. The speaker then represents the geometric average as the mid-point between two extreme quantities by moving his palms towards each other on the transverse axis until they meet in front of the chest, in alignment with the body’s axis of symmetry. A comparison of the gestures produced in Examples 278 and 279 (see Table 29) shows that one can signify a geometric average (Ga) equally well by a movement as by a localization. Speaker 1’s hand-cursor searches for the intermediary mark between the two extremes that it draws by repeating its path from left to right (Ga.1). Alternatively, speaker 2’s vertical hands coming from the right and the left and uniting at a mid-chest position come to represent the intermediary value between the two extremes, the most positive and the most negative values (Ga.2). Curiously, this symmetrical gesture iconically represents the geometric median, defined as a straight line joining the vertex of a triangle to the mid-point of the opposite side. The arithmetic average (Aa) is signified equally well by a circular movement performed with one hand (Aa.1), as by an oscillation up and down performed alternately with two flat hands (Aa.2). The arithmetic average is defined by speaker 1 as the product resulting from the sum of all the marks, represented by a movement encircling the ensemble of the marks. Expressing himself with both hands, speaker 2 could have encircled the space symmetrically. He does not do this; he represents the average salary to himself and to us as the right balance between low salaries, on the one hand, and high salaries, on the other. This comparison illustrates how two different speakers were able to express the same idea with gestures that are physically quite different. The idea of the geometric
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
average is expressed by a lateral alternating movement of one hand (Ga.1) or by a symmetrical movement of two hands that establish a specific location (Ga.2): either by a movement with one hand for speaker 1 or by a location with two hands for speaker 2. The arithmetic average is expressed by a circular movement of one hand (Aa.1) or by an alternating straight-line movement of two hands (Aa.2): either by a circular movement for speaker 1 or by a straight-line movement for speaker 2. This comparison also shows that the speaker’s choice of using either one or two hands determined the subsequent execution, symmetrical or otherwise, of the second gesture. From these two examples we can see how people may conceive of a similar idea in different ways, as shown by the different gestural expressions employed, and we can also see how a given gesture may influence the way in which a subsequent gesture is performed. Table 29.╇ Pedagogical disambiguation of a word by a gesture representing the idea
Speaker 1
Gestures with 1 hand
Speaker 2
Gestures with 2 hands
Geometric average (Ga)
Arithmetic average (Aa)
Ce n’est que la moyenne entre les notes It’s not just the average between the marks
c’est pas la moyenne des notes des différents élèves it’s not the average of the marks of the different pupils
|<……. | …….>| (Ga.1)
(Aa.1)
G1 = between the extremes
G2 = of the ensemble (of the marks)
du salaire median of the median salary mais au milieu but in the middle >>> || <<< ╇╇ (Ga.2) G1 = in the exact middle
i.e. pas le salaire moyen i.e. not the average salary –- | __ ╇ (Aa.2) G2 = balance between low and high
6.â•… The contribution of a semiotic analysis In his analysis of co-speech gesture, McNeill (2002) puts forward the hypothesis that there is a conflictual, internal dialectic inherent to the utterance process that therefore implies two opposing types of sign (verbal and gestural) corresponding to two different modes of thought in interaction: one is abstract and analytic, and the other is imagistic and global; a co-speech gesture being the representation of an essentially holistic and idiosyncratic mental image. Taking the signification of the co-speech gesture as my starting point, my approach differs from McNeill’s in that I seek, for my part, to understand the Â�symbolic
 Elements of meaning in gesture
functioning of the gesture itself. Indeed, in order to understand the product of an interaction between two types of sign, it seems to me essential to know how each system functions. I study the symbolic characteristics of the gesture whose interaction with verbal contexts determines its meaning within a specific context. The search for the explanatory source(s) of these spontaneous, individual, imaged creations requires one to undertake the systematic comparison of specific instances. This analytic comparison, on both the physical level and the semantic level, allows one to discover not only the symbolic possibilities of gesture, but also those of each gestural component or of an interaction between gestural components and subcomponents. A gesture thus no longer appears like a synthetic whole but as a recomposition of physical elements, each with the potential to convey meaning, into a composite whole that is linked, by resemblance or contiguity, to perceptual-motor experiences. The meaning of a gesture can be understood insofar as these perceptual-motor experiences are commonly shared by the cultural group in question or, more generally, by the human species. It thus appears that the two types of signs in interaction in the utterance process both result from different combinations of elements: arbitrary, juxtaposed, and voluntarily produced, in the case of verbal signs; motivated, simultaneous, and produced spontaneously and non-consciously, in the case of co-speech gestural signs. Although different, the two types of signs are not as sharply divided from one another as the widely used terms ‘nonverbal communication’ as opposed to ‘verbal communication’ give us to understand. Here is a metaphor for the utterance process which, though it might be something of a caricature, is nevertheless revealing. It is not about a male-female couple (two types of signs) whose conflictual relationship would engender life (utterance process) – McNeill’s favoured hypothesis – but rather, in my eyes, it is about a temporal short cut between two states (immaturity-maturity), two stages of a development (child-adult), or about a process involving two qualitatively different types of signs that are brought together and hence throw light on the process of symbol acquisition and expression. The different ways in which one might conceive of the interaction between gestural and verbal signs in speech seems to me to largely depend on the corpus studied. McNeill and his disciples compare oral accounts of an animated cartoon, characterized by complex, fast action sequences. When speakers give an account of a concrete, animated, visual situation, they quite naturally tend to render these in a visible way, in their gestures. This utterance situation implies the synchronous convergence of the said and the shown. For my part, insofar as I analyse the signification of gestures performed during utterances taken from everyday life – as Kendon has also done in Italy – I find myself confronted with the signification of gestures referring to abstract notions in interviews with intellectuals.
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
My semiotic analysis of a multiplicity of spontaneously produced co-speech gestures referring to the abstract reveals that gesture already represents an abstraction of reality, a preconceptual schema that may be at the origin of verbally expressed concepts. Analysis of the analogical links that underlie the gestural signs confirms and explains the frequently observed phenomenon of the gestural referent anticipating the verbal referent. If a gesture expresses a sketch (preconcept) of the concept put into words, it is completely natural that it precedes it during the utterance. Thus, the phenomenon of gestural anticipation could be explained by specific semiotic properties of the gestural sign: since it is the expression of a preconcept, it quite naturally precedes that of the corresponding concept. Expressing a preconcept, a co-speech gesture can assume several functions that serve the cognitive activity of both communication partners during utterance production. –â•fi
–â•fi
Cognitive support for the speaker: the spontaneous gestural expression of a preconcept allows the speaker to concretely maintain an idea in his mind for the period of time it takes him to put it into words (Freedman 1977); this gestural preamble may facilitate word retrieval from memory (Hadar et al. 1998,10 Krauss et al. 2000). Referential induction for the interlocutor who tries to guess the referent on the basis of the sketch offered. As the cognitive activity of defining the referent becomes interactive, the interlocutor is led through empathy to participate in the utterance process. By playing a game of alternating tension and relaxation in conveying information, the speaker offers a sequence of verbal-gestural pairs, each of which is composed of a piece of verbal and a piece of gestural information, temporally synchronous but semantically unsynchronized. Most often, each pair contains the verbal confirmation of a previously given piece of gestural information, and a new piece of gestural information that is to be verbally confirmed.
The semiotic-pragmatic approach (Kendon) is in harmony with the semiotic-structural approach (Calbris) to co-speech gesture but differs from it, although the two types of analysis are interdependent. The former approach is concerned with the complexity of the particular case, and the latter with multiplicity in order to obtain generality by comparing particular cases. The one seeks to reach a precise understanding of a case, and the other that of a symbolic system that explains the particular case. The situation analysed by the pragmatist is to be considered as a particular realization
.â•… “We conclude that ideational gestures probably facilitate word retrieval, as well as reflect the transfer of information between propositional and non-propositional representations during message construction” (Hadar et al. 1998:â•›59–60).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
of an underlying symbolic system. Performance being the particular realization of a competence, the study of the one supposes knowledge of the other. If the study of the symbolic system requires knowledge of the context of each of the examples examined, the interpretation of a gesture in its context requires knowledge, by learning or training, of the underlying symbolic system used to construct its meaning, which is what comparative semiotic analysis attempts to bring to light. With good reason, Kendon draws upon on the contextual situation as well as the verbal context, or more precisely on the co-occurrence of the stroke phase of a gesture phrase and a verbal unit in order to attribute the gesture with a signification relating to the verbal unit thus highlighted. This systematicity in the interpretive methodology presents the risk of arriving at an interpretation without taking into consideration physical information conveyed by the gesture itself. There is a risk that the interpretation may be made independently of a physical understanding of the gesture. In his book Gesture: Visible action as utterance, Kendon (2004a), like a good teacher, tends to simplify in order to make it easier for the reader to understand. In his treatment of certain gestures that serve, according to him, in various ways as illocutionary act markers or as discourse structure markers, he has shown how many of these may be grouped together into what he refers to as ‘families’.11 Each ‘family’ comprises gestures that share the same configuration allied to the same orientation but may differ in respect of their movement. It is essentially about the hand put into a configuration – either a ring shape formed by two fingers, the thumb and the index finger in contact at their tips (R family), or a closed hand shape formed by all the fingers brought together so that their tips are in contact (finger bunch or grappolo: G family, Chapter 12) – or, furthermore, about the open hand put into a position with a specific orientation – either facing downwards (prone: OHP family), or held in the vertical plane (VP), in the horizontal plane (ZP), or facing upwards (supine: OHS family), the presentational palm (Palm Presentation: PP), or the palm designating someone or something (Palm Addressed: PA, Chapter 13). He attributes each gesture family with an essential meaning. The pinching together of all five digits (G family) or the first two digits (R family) represents a precise grasp (‘precision grip’ gestures), the open supine hand (OHS family) gives or receives, whereas with a prone orientation (OHP family), it opposes something or someone, and in doing so expresses a negation that is uttered or deduced from the context. Kendon seems to admit only one essential meaning per gesture family, the particular meaning of a particular gesture deduced from the context being explained by semantic derivation based on a single motivation, in this case ‘opposition’. The analysis is justified in one of the sub-classes
.â•… Cf. Kendon (2004a), Chapters 12–13.
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
of the open hand, namely the vertical palm (VP), but dangerously reduced for the other, namely the horizontal palm (ZP). Kendon does not take into account the possibility of plural motivation that has nevertheless been demonstrated to exist in French corpora (Calbris 1983:â•›462–471, 1987, 1990:â•›140, 1993) in respect of the same gesture, ZP (Kendon 2004a:â•›255–264). The reason for this, it seems to me, is the fact that he studies the contextual meanings by gesture type and not the various ways in which a given notion may be expressed gesturally. Finding the physical element that is common to these various ways enables one to discover the analogical link that establishes the gestural sign. By not taking plural motivation into account, Kendon reduces the different possible analogical links to a single one and reduces a possibly plural motivation to a unique motivation. For him, the ‘theme’ of the ZP (transverse movement of the Level Hand) is “showing that something in progress is interrupted, that some process is cut off ” (2004a:â•›263). Before presenting corresponding examples Â�(Examples 95–103), he explains that if in some contexts the “ZP gesture may be thought of as a kinesic parallel to the denial, interruption or negation expressed verbally, in the other cases, however, the ZP makes kinesically explicit the denial, interruption or negation that is implied by what is in the words” (2004a: 255). Many meanings of ZP can indeed be paraphrased by means of a negative formula: direct character by ‘without detour’, categorical character by ‘without question’ (Examples 98–99, p. Â�258–9), absolute character by ‘without exception’ (Example 100, p. 258; Â�Example 103, p. 261), direct and absolute character by ‘without interruption’ (Example 97, p. 257), and as a very positive, superlative appreciation ‘not better’ (Examples 101–102, p. 260–1). However, if we look at the gestures of those speakers whose thumb and little finger are curiously raised (Kendon 2004a: Figure 13.6 of Example 95, p. 257; Figure 13.7 of Example 99, p. 259), the gesture cannot represent a cut by moving the edge of the horizontal hand sideways to analogically signify negation. Rather, this movement gives salience to the tips of the three fingers that are not raised as they draw a transverse straight line to physically express ‘in a direct line’ and thus analogically represent the direct, assured character of their referent: the absolute character of the verbally uttered negation “(absolutely) no one” (Figure 13.6), or the categorical and assured character of the reply given, “Just this here is (the true heart of) Naples” (Figure 13.7). Precise and complete knowledge of the situational context does not necessarily guarantee the accuracy of the researcher’s interpretation of the gesture. It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. The context does not produce the meaning of the gesture, it determines it, selects it from a range of other possible meanings. The meaning of a co-speech gesture appears, definitively, as the product of an interaction between the context – that is, moreover, multifaceted: physical, psychological, utterance, verbal, vocal, and kinesic – and the possible physical significations conveyed by the gesture. In
 Elements of meaning in gesture
fact, the contextual interpretation of a gesture also supposes a physical understanding of it, i.e. knowledge of the underlying symbolic network that one gains by examining a multiplicity of situations involving language use that have been encountered, lived by the native speaker and/or by the researcher. In short, the interpretation of a co-speech gesture supposes not only an appreciation of the contextual situation but also a physical understanding of the gesture and of the underlying symbolic system acquired thanks to a methodological, comparative approach. Only a comparative examination of the greatest number of examples observed in context allows one to become aware of the symbolic potentialities of the diverse physical elements of gesture. Let us now summarize what has been established in this chapter. Regarding the relations between verbal and gestural units, it is necessary to distinguish between their temporal relation and their semantic relation. Verbal and gestural units either succeed one another, in which case the gestures do not accompany speech; or they are simultaneous, which presents us with two cases: their respective pieces of information are either synchronized or unsynchronized. When they are unsynchronized, the gestural information precedes the verbal information. In the case of alternation between speech and gesture, gesture follows on from speech, precedes it, or interrupts it. This happens for various pragmatic reasons that essentially belong to the realm of diplomacy: to express a rather unpleasant comment without saying it (S → G), or allowing oneself to play the card of nonverbal expressivity, by onomatopoeia and gesture, but without losing face thanks to the addition of a verbal epilogue (G → S). The sequence – vocal-kinesic information, verbal reformulation – is produced to increase the degree of expressivity (Examples 255–258). In cases where referential gesture accompanies speech, the gestural information complements the verbal information, or more often precedes it, or else precedes while complementing it as well. Indeed, gesture can use simultaneous commentary to express an attitude in relation to the discourse topic or in relation to the interlocutor (Examples 259–264). It can have the pedagogical function of lexical disambiguation, voluntary or otherwise (Examples 265–268). In the audio-visual chain segmented in both rhythmic-semantic and verbalgestural pairs, the information conveyed by the gesture in one verbal-gestural pair often announces that conveyed by the speech in the subsequent pair: co-verbal, the gestural sign is pre-verbal. As a concrete sketch of the concept to be uttered, gesture sometimes facilitates verbal encoding. It thus serves a cognitive function in the utterance act (Examples 270–274). Likewise, by staging an intellectually engaging game of suspense alternating tension and relaxation, the pre-verbal gestural sign serves a phatic and a pedagogical function for the benefit of the interlocutor. The latter perceives the gestural sketch of the concept whose verbal confirmation he is expecting to hear (Example 275, Table 24, Figure 86). Several hypotheses were put forward concerning the reasons behind this phenomenon of gestural expression anticipating verbal expression. These propose (1) a
Chapter 9.╇ The gestural sign and speech 
physical reason – synthetic gestural expression is faster than linear verbal expression; (2) a psychological reason – in the microcosm of the gesture-speech ensemble, one can see a recapitulation of the process of language evolution: as an integral part of verbalization, gesture maintains its pre-verbal status; (3) a cognitive reason – gesture gives the visible form, the idea of the thing to be expressed, and it remains as a sketch to be completed by verbal expression; (4) a more or less intended pedagogical reason – the pre-verbal sign serves a phatic and predictive function for the benefit of the interlocutor. The psychological, cognitive, semiotic, and even pedagogical reasons for gestural anticipation are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, a hypothesis was formulated about the relation between the gestural anticipation of speech and the types of mental images involved: the reasoning is based on a possible correlation between the different types of image and the difficulty of encoding them verbally (see Table 26). The analysis of two particular cases (Examples 276, 277) revealed the possibility of the two types of sign interactively constructing meaning (Figure 87). Lastly, Example 278 summarizes the relations that gesture and speech maintain during the course of utterance production, on both the temporal and the semantic levels, and recalls how one can identify the co-speech gestural referent that anticipates the verbal referent (see Figure 88). Finally, this chapter provided more evidence of the multifunctionality of the gestural sign serving referential, expressive, pedagogical, phatic, and predictive functions. The next chapter will lead us to examine what the gestural sign reveals about our way of generating abstract thought from concrete experience.
chapter 10
Gesture, thought and speech The analysis of the gestural representation of thought during verbal expression informs us about the human ability to achieve abstract thought. In this chapter we shall see that gesture represents an intermediary stage between the concrete and the abstract: it figuratively represents a notion extracted from concrete action (Gestural symbolization of the concrete) on the one hand, and as a physical representation, it re-concretizes the abstract (The gestural concretization of the abstract) on the other. The speaker gesturally re-concretizes images that are shared within his linguistic community, but he also expresses his own personal images (Gesture, the mental image’s witness) and presents metaphorical images of what he wants to say (The gestural representation of the thought to be put into words). Indeed, we shall analyse a case of spatialized reasoning which provides us with a very good example of personal gestural imagery. The gesture reveals elements of the speaker’s thought and even aspects of his unconscious (A frequently occurring gesture reveals the unconscious). With reference to the analogical links discovered and discussed in Chapter 8, I shall put forward explanatory hypotheses about how we achieve abstract thought (The symbolic extracted from the physical) on the basis of different physical experiences (From the reflex or the symptom to the gestural sign; From the act to the gestural sign; From percept to concept). Two examples of perceptual schemas are given (From the visual field to the notion of totality; From opening to explaining). The first schema has already been presented in preceding chapters, whereas the second, which is not so easy to discover, is generally more widespread than it seems to be. For instance, Kendon (2004a) gives Italian examples of it.
1.â•… Gesture and thought 1.1â•… Ideational gesture Gesture is ideational insofar as mimesis is a mental operation of abstraction with concrete input and output: selected features of our sensory experience of the world are abstracted and reproduced in kinesic forms of representation. Whether it refers to the concrete or to the abstract, symbolizes the concrete or concretizes the abstract,
 Elements of meaning in gesture
� gesture is situated at the interface between matter and mind; as a general rule, it reproduces an image schema (Johnson 1987), an intermediary between the concrete and the abstract.
1.1.1â•… Gestural symbolization of the concrete The gestural evocation of a concrete object implies the selection of the relevant characteristics of the object under consideration as well as their synthesized, stylized reproduction, an operation that I call symbolization (see Chapter 1, Representation of the physical world). Mimesis is an operation of abstraction which creates concrete representations, for instance, of the size or the volume of something as being ‘like that’. Using the same principle, one will see, for example, mechanics explaining Â�technical manipulations by reproducing them in empty space. Of course, understanding the gesture presupposes shared knowledge of the physical world to which it is referring. Extracted from reality, these gestures refer to reality: the process of signifying by Â�imitation occurs by creating a double indexical link of contiguity between the material world and the sign, then inversely between the sign and the material world (Le Baron & Streeck 2000:â•›124, Streeck 2009). Gestures referring to the concrete are relatively infrequent unless one has to describe something concrete for one reason or another, and gesture thus performs an instructive function. Apart from these ‘pedagogical’ situations, gesture rarely refers to concrete action. To demonstrate this, here is a selection of gestures that accompany utterances referring to concrete situations (see Table 30): 280 1. [Perpendicular to the body, the index finger in the horizontal plane moves forwards along the sagittal axis] On avait percé un placard (One had drilled a hole in a cupboard). e gesture does not represent how the drill was handled, but the Â�piercing Th Â�action of the tip of the drill bit making a hole. 2. [The edge of the hand in the vertical plane chops down] Il fallait les abattre (It was necessary to slaughter them (the horses), lit. to make them fall to the ground). I n reality the horses were not guillotined! They were killed, eliminated. Generally, the idea of elimination is evoked by a transverse cutting stroke and not by a vertical one as in this case, so here it seems that the gesture evokes the abruptness of the decision to be taken, ‘it was Â�necessary to cut’ and the metaphorical idea of death experienced as a brutal interruption of life. 3. [Thumbs pointing upwards and palms facing the speaker, the hands are Â�lowered in the frontal plane] On éteint un petit peu la salle (Turn the light down a bit in the room). e gesture does not represent the handling of a light switch or a Â�dimmer, Th but the curtain of night falling in front of oneself!
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
4. Here we find once again the word ‘éteindre’ (to reduce the intensity, to switch off), but without the poetic evocation in the preceding example: [the raised horizontal palm moves downwards] On va éteindre la lumière (Switch the light off). e gesture represents the level of light that ‘goes down’ and, once again, Th not the handling of a light switch. Table 30.╇ Gesture symbolizes the concrete: Examples 280 (Calbris 1990:â•›204) Gesture*
Speech
1.
Perpendicular to the body, the index finger in the horizontal plane moves forwards along the sagittal axis
*On avait percé un placard *One had drilled a hole in a cupboard
2.
The edge of the hand in the vertical plane chops down
*Il fallait les abattre (les chevaux) *It was necessary to slaughter them (the horses)
3.
Thumbs pointing upwards and palms facing the speaker, the hands are lowered in the frontal plane
*On éteint un petit peu la salle *Turn the light down a bit in the room
4.
The raised horizontal palm moves downwards
*On va éteindre la lumière *Switch the light off
The speaker does not, therefore, reproduce the action performed or to be performed in reality, i.e. handling a drill, or pressing a light switch: his gesture is not mimetic. He does not simulate the verbally evoked action; he shows its objective by representing the expected result (a hole, less light). Let us reconsider Example 280.4. The speaker does not simulate the action (pressing a light switch); as the request is deduced from the verbal formulation (On va éteindre: Switch off), he gesturally and diplomatically formulates the reason for his request (to have less light). In short, he justifies his request gesturally so that it does not seem like an order. A gesture that accompanies a verbal reference to a concrete action (drilling a hole into a cupboard, slaughtering horses) does not reproduce the action, it concretely represents a notion extracted from the action (piercing, sudden death). We have already noted this phenomenon in a situation referring to writing (see Chapter 3, Analysis of Example 24). The gesture does not show the act; it gives an idea of the action by stylizing the primordial act: drilling is represented by boring a hole with a finger-tool, and not by handling a drill; writing is represented by moving a finger-pen from left to right, and not by typing on a keyboard. Indeed, gestures that accompany utterances referring to concrete situations rarely reproduce concrete actions unless, in order to relive a situation or make someone understand a technical action, the information conveyed corresponds to ‘like that’ (see Chapter 9, Example 271). More often, they represent the result of a concrete action, thus (an abstract) a notion extracted from a concrete act. In a certain way, interfacing
 Elements of meaning in gesture
between matter and mind (see Figure 89), gesture mediates the transition between the concrete and the abstract in both directions: by stylizing the concrete, and by concretizing the abstract. It is the expression of an intermediary image schema between the concrete and the abstract. Abstract
symbolizes the concete Gesture concretizes the abstract
Concrete Figure 89.╇ Gesture, an intermediary image schema between the concrete and the abstract
1.1.2â•… Gestural concretization of the abstract Figurative expressions are often accompanied by a gesture that recalls its literal origin, whereas when the literal meaning is intended, it is rarely signified both gesturally and verbally. For instance, the utterance “Où est le fil électrique?” (Where’s the electric cable?) may be accompanied by a gesture showing that the cable literally looks ‘like that’, whereas the utterance “C’est le fil conducteur (de l’histoire)” (It’s the thread running through the story) implies a gesture that recalls the original concrete meaning of the word ‘fil’ which is being used figuratively: the drawing of a line from A to B. It evokes the image that the word contains virtually. 1.1.2.1â•… The reconcretization of the figurative senses of words and locutions.â•… Here is a series of examples: 281 An ethnologist is talking about his published works: “[the thumb and index finger of his right hand in the Finger Pinch configuration draw a transverse diagonal line that gradually rises] le fil conducteur de “Les Mots, la Mort, les Sorts” (the thread running through “Words, Death, Curses”) (video 70) In order to be more personally detached when studying their patients, a Â�clinical psychologist recommends to other researchers “une élaboration défensive (a Â�defensive strategy) [Palm Forwards pushes outwards to the full extent of the arm] qui le mette suffisamment à distance” (that puts him sufficiently at a distance (away from oneself)) (video 71)
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
A management specialist wonders: “Quels ont été les sous qui ont été (How many pennies have been) [the palms are thrown upwards and forwards in two parallel arc movements] lancés dans la nature (thrown into nature) [the right Rigid Hand traces a sine curve forwards] et quels ont été les flux de ces sous?” (lit. and what have been the [cash] flows of these pennies? meaning ‘and where did the money go?’ (video 72) A university professor uses a daring metaphor by miming the action of opening an umbrella: “J’étais pas tout à fait d’accord (I was not completely in agreement) [fists placed on top of each other, the left one underneath moves downwards while the right one briskly detaches itself and moves upwards] avec l’espèce de parapluie institutionnel qu’il a ouvert hein, en disant…” (with the kind of Â�umbrella institutional that he opened huh, by saying …)1 I n fact, the analogy between the abstract and the concrete senses lies in the abs-Â�traction (Lat. ‘ab’ meaning ‘from’ and ‘trahere’ meaning ‘to draw’ in the sense of ‘to pull’), in the symbol ‘drawn out from’ the concrete, hence the need to depict the symbol that provides the connection and accounts for the idea or the action abs-tracted from the concrete. The approach seems very instructive: in the last example, the speaker verbally announces the analogy “l’espèce de” (the kind of) and uses gesture to show the abs-tract relation.
1.1.2.2â•… The gestural concretization of literal sense.â•… The same applies when a gesture recalls the primary origin of a word2 revealing the initial transition from the concrete to the abstract. This is what this academic does during a television interview where he opposes the idea of explanation, ‘du déplié’ (of something unfolded, unpacked), to that of implication, ‘du replié’ (of something folded up, packed away again). 189 Et dont l’explication nous donne l’idée d’une dépliure, d’une mise à plat, [Â�transverse symmetrical movement of the Level Hands] mais dans le sens [Â�repeated] du déplié. (video 43) And whose explanation gives us the idea of an unfolding, of a, of a laying flat, [transverse symmetrical movement of the Level Hands] but in the sense [Â�repeated] of spread out. .â•… English word order: ‘I was not completely in agreement with the kind of institutional umbrella that he opened by saying…’ .â•… In this respect, Fónagy (2001:â•›568) criticizes the term ‘etymological gestures’ that I have employed and reminds us that “it must be clear that we do not use the word ‘etymology’ as a term of historical semantics, but in the context of dynamic synchrony. The original meaning of the expression illustrated by the gesture must be retrievable on the basis of the present use of its elements.”
 Elements of meaning in gesture
In the corpora one also finds numerous examples of gestures where the speaker Â�represents his speech act by physically expressing his mental action in the abstract domain: he (manually and orally) ‘makes’ a proposition, a demonstration, or a development, thus revealing the literal senses of words. The gesturally offered proposal is ‘pro-posed’, i.e. placed in front of the speaker (Lat. pro: ‘in front of ’’, ponere: ‘to place’). The gesturally offered account is ‘ex-posed’ (Lat. ex: ‘out of ’). The gesturally offered demonstration is shown (Lat. monstrare: ‘to show, point out, reveal’) or the ‘evidence’ (Lat. videre: ‘to see’) is offered on the open palm in order to be seen. The gesturally offered explanatory example is ‘un-folded’ (Lat. plicare: ‘to fold’, ex-plicare: ‘to unfold, display, develop, explain’). Here is a final example in frequent use. With the fingers spread apart and curved, the hand in the Bowl configuration oriented towards the speaker* seems to take Â�possession of something. This may be an abstract object; the hand “com-prehends” (with-prehension) “grasps” an idea. The action may refer to oneself or to someone else: “*Tu as compris, tu vois ce que je veux dire?” (*You’ve understood, you see what I mean to say?). The gesture represents the act of “making something one’s own”; it reproduces the action of taking for oneself, whether it be food, intellectual assimilation, or a conviction: 282 On se demande si vous avez envie de le soutenir (One asks oneself if you feel like supporting it) [Bowl configuration, palm facing the speaker] avec Â�enthousiasme (with enthusiasm)”, asks a presenter of a television news Â�programme. The gesture expresses the idea of the thing, i.e. the original (literal) meaning of the term idea: the visible form of the thing.3 This may be the reason why an idea is immediately gesturalized when it arises during spontaneous expression, as if gesturing maintains the presence of the idea in the mind during the time it takes to develop it verbally. The frequent reporting of gestural formulation anticipating verbal formulation Â�during spontaneous turn taking would be a proof of the ideational character of gesture. As a striking example, here is the beginning of an ethnologist’s account of a thesis. His utterance is segmented below so that one can gain a better understanding of “word-for-word” gestural representation (see Table 31):
.â•… Gk. idea means ‘visible form’ which is derived from the verb idein ‘to see’. Cf. Le Petit Robert 1.
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
Table 31.╇ Gesture concretizes the abstract (Calbris 1990:╛192) Gesture*
Speech
Laid flat on the table, the hand signifies ‘this being laid down’: Left hand opens, facing upwards to the left:
*Finalement *Finally *entre l’analyse de l’espace *between the analysis of space *et celle du temps *and that of time *et l’ensemble du système, *and the system as a whole *le parcours *the path *condensé… *condensed…
Right hand opens, facing upwards to the right: Both concave hands with spread fingers sculpt a hemisphere to translate the idea of globality: One hand traces vertical loops towards the speaker to represent the (internal) evolution of thought: Face-to-face palms are brought closer together:
NB – The beginning of each gesture (described on the left) slightly precedes the word or the verbal unit referring to the notion (cited on the right) that the gesture represents.
1.2â•… Gesture, the mental image’s witness Unlike the above cases, the following gesture no longer illustrates a verbal image that is shared by a linguistic-cultural group and has become barely conscious. It directly expresses the speaker’s own personal mental image. 283 An academic is talking about his intellectual development: C’est-à-dire que c’est [his hands rotate around each other] un rapport dialectique dans lequel je suis fait par ce que je fais euh constamment [rise vertically to head level, palms Â�facing each other like manual boundaries on either side of his face] et je ne suis pas en fait [then descend to the rest position] immuable et constant (video 73). That is to say that it’s [his hands rotate around each other] a dialectic relationship in which I’m being made by what I’m doing er constantly [rise Â�vertically to head level, palms facing each other like manual boundaries on either side of his face] and I’m not in fact [then descend to the rest position] immutable and constant. The gesture performed during “et je ne suis pas en fait (and I’m not in fact)” seems to express ‘halted, limited, with blinkers’ before one hears, after a silence, the end of the sentence: “immuable et constant (immutable and constant)”. The anticipating gestural information poetically comes to enrich and paraphrase the verbal information. The speaker opposes ‘dialectic evolution’ to ‘immobility’. In accordance with the opposed concepts that they are representing, the gestures present physically opposed characteristics: a continuous curved-line movement for the first concept, and a halted straightline movement for the second. The two hands (the right hand x, and the left hand y) turning around each other in a movement of exchange and continual interlocked
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Â� circling (x produces y that produces x, etc.) represent the evolving man (the right hand x) continually being regenerated through his acts (the left hand y), whereas the manual boundaries, on the contrary, figuratively de-limit the blinkered man who has ceased to evolve. The circular gesture of the two hands is the concrete expression of what the speaker says: “c’est un rapport dialectique dans lequel je suis fait par ce que je fais euh constamment” (It’s a dialectic relationship in which I’m being made by what I’m doing er constantly). One sees the gesture translate the mental imagery and account for the visual thought (Arnheim 1969) that accompanies and underlies the verbalization. The following example is more difficult to interpret insofar as it concerns a double metaphor that is at the same time conceptual and gestural. A teacher is talking about the difficulties encountered by young immigrants in specialized classes where: “Ils travaillent à la fois sur l’apprentissage de la lecture au plus bas niveau (They work at the same time on learning to read at the lowest level)”: 284 Ils travaillent (They work) [His right hand, limp and curved, draws a small arc on the right] à la fois (at the same time) [it opens, index finger pointing to the person on his right, who is glanced at briefly] sur l’appren- (on the appren-) [then lowering the torso, head sunk into the shoulders, he puts the fingers of both hands on the table] tissage (ticeship) [alternatively advancing the index and the middle fingers, while looking at the other interlocutor on his left] de la Â�lecture au plus (of reading at the most) [without moving at the end of the Â�sentence] bas niveau (low level), (video 74) The teacher makes himself look smaller by brusquely crouching forwards while uttering the word apprentissage (apprenticeship), before hesitantly ‘walking’ his fingers forwards on the table while saying “de la lecture au plus bas niveau (of reading at the lowest level)” and simultaneously looking up at his interlocutor from below. The hesitant forward movement of the fingers would evoke a simple ‘step by step’ progression were it not preceded by this quick posture change that is symbolic because there is neither a physical nor a psychological reason for it. The whole kinesic ensemble (posture, eye gaze, gesture) prompts one to see ‘the step-by-step progression of something very small’. In synchrony with the verbal unit “l’apprentissage de la lecture au plus bas niveau (learning to read at the lowest level)”, the gestural mimesis is a metaphoric representation of a different kind of learning, that of taking the very first steps when learning to walk. The comparison of the verbal and the gestural information allows one speculate about the metaphor that has just been processed in the speaker-gesturer’s mind: the steps of the primary conceptual learning process, ‘learning to read at the lowest level’, have been linked to the steps of the primary bodily learning process (conceptual metaphor) signified by ‘walking on all fours’ and symbolically mimed by the fingers (gestural metaphor).
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
The speaker links the two learning processes, but above all their initial stages, because he insists on the initial difficulty of the one by evoking the very gradual beginnings of the other. The basics of reading are evoked by those of walking, in reality “at the lowest level”, as forward motion on the ground on hands and knees precedes the first steps on the feet. This example is analogous to that of Parrill & Sweetser’s (2004) analysis of the co-speech gestures of an American teacher. They show how the latter insists on the random nature of a computer programme which solves a problem via recursion by implicitly comparing it with the randomness with which a rat learns to find a reward in a maze. Their demonstration of how metaphors are interlinked applies the mentalspaces framework (Fauconnier 1984) and its later extension, conceptual integration or “blending” (Fauconnier & Turner 2002). The gestural expression of a mental image is not exclusive to adults. For instance, studying how children explained their solutions to certain Piagetian conservation problems, Church & Goldin-Meadow (1986) observed that some children who gave erroneous verbal explanations nevertheless indicated through their gestures that they understood the problem and its solutions better than their spoken utterances indicated. In his review of Goldin-Meadow (2003), Kendon (2004b:â•›94) states that: oldin-Meadow includes in Part II an account of studies which show very clearly G that in the kind of problem solving situations she has worked with the “mismatch” between what a child expresses in gesture and what he expresses in speech when explaining a problem is indeed noticed by teachers and that teachers respond by altering the way they develop their instructional strategies, accordingly.
One can infer from the teachers’ spontaneous reaction that the possibility of expressing thought via gesture is commonly acknowledged and that in cases of “mismatch” between the information conveyed by the two modalities, it is the gestural expression that they rely upon, knowing that it concretely gives an account of how the child Â�visualizes the problem.
1.3â•… The gestural representation of the thought to be put into words In Chapter 3 we saw how, in one sentence, the same word ‘système’ (system) was accompanied by different gestures reflecting the development of the idea being uttered (see The representational gesture is not a word illustrator, Example 25, Figure 17). We shall now reaffirm that gesture expresses ideas and does not illustrate words: 285 The following three verbal expressions used by the former French Prime Â�Minister Lionel Jospin (LJ) are similar – 1. “Je ne veux pas du tout opposer (I do not at all want to oppose)” 2. “Et moi, je n’oppose pas (And me, I do not oppose)”
 Elements of meaning in gesture
3. “Donc moi, je n’oppose pas (Therefore me, I do not oppose)” – but their respective co-speech gestures are different. To interpret the data, one has to know that the idea of opposition is usually represented by a direction that is contrary to the norm. As the normal direction of progression goes from left to right, opposition is represented by the inverse direction, from right to left. It is indicated by displacing either one hand or a bimanual configuration (from right to left), or by a change of hand (right hand, then left hand). Whereas the gestural representation of ideational elements uttered in the first example goes from left to right, in the normal direction, in the other two examples it goes from right to left, in the inverse direction (see Figure 90.1–3): 1. [Frame configuration] Eh bien je ne veux pas du tout [placed to the left, Figure 90.1a] opposer ceux qui sont dans une situation de, d’assistance ou de solidarité [to the right, Figure 90.1b] et ceux qui travaillent. [Frame configuration] Ah well I do not want at all [placed to the left, Figure 90.1a] to oppose those who are in a situation of, of assistance or of welfare [to the right, Figure 90.1b] and those who are working.4 2. Et moi, [the left Rigid Hand transferred from the right to the left] je n’oppose pas [placed again to the right, Figure 90.2a] l’Europe [goes to the left, Figure 90.2b] à la lutte pour l’emploi. And me, [the left Rigid Hand transferred from the right to the left] I do not oppose [placed again to the right, Figure 90.2a] Europe [goes to the left, Figure 90.2b] to the struggle for employment). 3. Donc moi [Frame configuration in front of the speaker deplaced to his right] je n’oppose pas l’équilibre [right Level Hand] budgétaire, [right hand folded in the Right Angle configuration moves obliquely forwards to the right, Figure 90.3a] la réduction des déficits, [left hand moves obliquely forwards to the left, Figure 90.3b] et puis la recherche de la croissance. Therefore me [Frame configuration in front of the speaker deplaced to his right] I do not oppose the equilibrium [right Level Hand] budgetary, [right hand folded in the Right Angle configuration moves obliquely forwards to the right, Figure 90.3a] the reduction of the deficits, [left hand moves obliquely forwards to the left, Figure 90.3b] and then the pursuit of growth.5
.â•… English word order: ‘Ah well I do not at all want to oppose those who are in a situation of, of assistance or of welfare [i.e. receiving financial assistance or welfare benefits] and those who are working.’ .â•… English word order: ‘Therefore, me, I do not oppose the budgetary equilibrium, the Â�reduction of the deficits, and then the pursuit of growth.’
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech  Right of the speaker
Left of the speaker 1. I do not want at all to oppose
b. and those who (are working.)
From left to right
a. those who (are in a situation ofº)
2. And me, I do not oppose
a. Europe
From right to left
b. to the struggle (for employment)
3. Therefore me, I do not oppose
a. the (budgetary) equilibrium
From right to left
b. and then the pursuit (of growth)
Figure 90.1–3.╇ Gesture expresses the thought and does not illustrate the word: Example 285
In (1), LJ only enumerates two different positions, that of the financially assisted and that of the employed, by situating them respectively on the left and on the right. In contrast, in (2) and (3), the verbally expressed notions are given spatial locations inversely: the first notion is situated on the right and then the second notion is situated on the left. This allows us to say that the idea of opposition is present in
 Elements of meaning in gesture
LJ’s gestural expression, because if he is not opposing something, “And me, I do not oppose” or “Therefore me, I do not oppose”, he is countering someone he opposes. He is taking the contrary view. In (2), he initially represents the relation of opposition, from right to left, before situating the opposed elements, first on the right and then on the left (see Chapter 3, The relation precedes the elements to be related). In (3), his gestures show that he is referring to a mentally spatialized opposition between the budgetary equilibrium (Frame configuration oriented to the right) obtained by reducing deficits on the one hand (right hand), and by pursing of economic growth on the other (left hand). The idea of improvement, present in both the deficit reduction and the pursuit of growth, is represented by moving a ‘notch forwards’, represented by a push of the backs of the fingers advancing diagonally to the right with the right hand, and then to the left with the left hand. While he is saying “I do not oppose the budgetary equilibrium, the reduction of the deficits, and then the pursuit of growth”, the Prime Minister thus shows that he wants to simultaneously achieve two objectives that he advances successively, but by beginning with the right hand, and not the left, he signifies that his approach to policy on these issues is contrary to that of other politicians. Thus, the analysis of co-speech gesture allows us to make the distinction between what is said and what is thought, as gesture is a trace of the latter. None of the gestures in these three examples illustrate the verb ‘opposer’ (to oppose); in the last two examples they represent the idea of opposition by a movement from right to left, contrary to the normal direction of progression from left to right. The gestural representation of thought will now be further demonstrated by taking the same gesture, rather than the same word, as the starting point. We shall see how one gesture expresses the same idea in different utterances. Studying the gestures performed in relation to the simultaneously uttered texts below (Example 286) allows us to understand how the speaker uses his body to distinguish a restricted abstract object – here, a section of the population and a restricted growth rate – from a defined abstract object evoked by the Frame configuration, as we have seen in Examples 285.1 and 285.3 (Figures 90.1 and 90.3). An abstract object that is conceived as a reduction or a part of something is no longer represented and defined by a gap between the hands (Frame configuration), but between two fingers of one hand, between the thumb and the index finger held wide apart and in parallel* (Wide Gap configuration). 286 This gesture measures the space between the digits as if one were using a Â�calliper and thus represents delimitation or the delimited part that one is talking about, for example, young people: “*Et quant aux jeunes, nous n’↜envisageons pas de créer un RMI-jeunes (And as for young people, we
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
don’t envisage creating a youth-RMI6)” (see Figure 91). – “C’est-à-dire que nous avons compris que *les politiques menées antérieurement maintenaient le taux de croissance français en dessous de ce qui était possible (That is to say that we have understood that *the policies administered previously maintained the French rate of growth below what was possible)”. At issue here are the ‘French’, ‘growth rate’, ‘maintained by’, and ‘below’ a certain level. Consequently, in this case, the gesture is maintained for the entire duration of the definition of this restricted object, hence the entire verbal utterance is in italics.
quant aux jeunes as for young people Figure 91.╇ A delimited part of an object / A section of the population (Calbris 2003d: 90)
A gesture representing an idea is maintained for the entire duration of the formulation of the idea. The duration of the synchronization between a gesture and speech is an indicator of the particular meaning of the gesture in its context. The gestural representation of thought put into words gains more facets when the speaker exploits all the symbolic possibilities of the gestural components. We have seen that every gesture is determined by the choice of body part, the shape it is given, as well as its orientation, and its movement. If each of its components can convey meaning, a gesture may not just evoke one notion but several notions simultaneously. Moreover, the in-depth analysis of each gesture – the analysis of what differs in its components in relation to the preceding gesture and of what is verbally signified in parallel – often enables one to attribute a particular meaning to each component. By way of example, let us examine the following utterance produced by LJ:
.â•… An abbreviation for ‘Revenu Minimum d’Insertion’. The RMI is a monthly allowance given to unemployed people with no other sources of income, after their unemployment benefits have run out. The ‘Revenu Minimum’ indicates that it is equivalent to the minimum wage; the ‘Insertion’ indicates that it is intended to help people get back into employment.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
287 … et c’est la politique que conduit le gouvernement. Et en même temps ce gouvernement, à partir du moment où il est resté fidèle à ses engagements – et vous pouvez lizir (y lire) ce que j’ai dit dans la campagne, vous pouvez regarder ce que j’ai dit dans ma déclaration de politique générale – à aucun moment je ne suis en démenti par rapport à cela, bien, ce Gouvernement, il a besoin, y compris, d’avoir un minimum de durée pour réussir. … and that’s the policy that the government is pursuing. And at the same time this government, from the moment that it has remained faithful to its Â�commitments – and you can read what I said during the campaign, you can look at what I said in my declaration of general policy – at no time have I been in contradiction regarding that, well, this government, it needs, included [as a condition], to have a minimum period of time in order to succeed. and what his bodily utterance signifies is described in this integral transcript (see Â�Figure 92.1–6): [right hand closed in a Fist] et c’est la politique que conduit le gouvernement. Et en même temps ce gouvernement, [1. left hand closed in a Fist] à partir du moment où il est resté fidèle à ses engagements, [2. left hand transformed into a ‘pointed board’ designates the left] et vous pouvez lizir (y lire) ce que j’ai dit dans la campagne, [3. right hand, thumb and index finger form a Finger Pinch] vous pouvez regarder ce que j’ai dit dans ma déclaration de politique générale, [4. left Level Hand above the table] à aucun moment je ne suis en démenti par rapport à cela, [5. left hand closed in a Fist] bien, ce Gouvernement, il a besoin, y compris, d’avoir [6. left hand, thumb and index finger held apart in parallel are Â�rhythmically lowered] un minimum | de durée | pour | réussir. [right hand closed in a Fist] and that’s the policy that the government is Â�pursuing. And at the same time this government, [1. left hand closed in a Fist] from the moment that it has remained faithful to its commitments, [2. left hand Â�transformed into a ‘pointed board’ designates the left] and you can read what I said during the campaign, [3. right hand, thumb and index finger form a Finger Pinch] you can look at what I said in my declaration of general policy, [4. left Level Hand above the table] at no time have I been in contradiction regarding that, [5. left hand closed in a Fist] well, this government, it needs, included [as a condition], to have [6. left hand, thumb and index finger held apart in parallel are rhythmically lowered] a minimum | period of time | in order | to succeed. Thus, in order to signify that the counterpart to an employment policy is the need for adequate time in office to implement it, LJ changes from using his right hand during “et c’est la politique que conduit le gouvernement” (and that’s the policy that the government
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
1.
from the moment that it has remained faithful to its commitments
2.
and you can read what I said during the campaign,
3.
you can look at what I said in my declaration of general policy,
4.
at no time have I been in contradiction regarding that,
5.
well, this government, it needs, included [as a condition], to have
6.
a minimum | period of time | in order | to succeed
Figure 92.1–6.╇ Gestures performed in Example 287
 Elements of meaning in gesture
is pursuing) to using his left hand during “à partir du moment où il est resté fidèle…, bien, ce Gouvernement, il a besoin…” (from the moment that it has remained faithful to its commitments…, well, this government, it needs…). The change of hand expresses here the counterpart signified verbally by “Et en même temps ce gouvernement” (And at the same time this government), and the use of the left hand is maintained up to the end of the utterance, the time taken to develop the idea of ‘counterpart’. The configuration is equally relevant. First one hand then the other is closed in a fist. This configuration is a sign of strength expressing the determined effort to remain committed to the policy to be pursued as well as the pressing need for time to make it succeed, i.e. both psychological strength and the importance of fulfilling a condition. One also notices a change of hand within the verbally symmetric comment clause “and you can…, you can…” (Figure 92.2–3). The comment clause is an invitation to verify on the left and on the right, to read over there (left hand) and to verify here (right hand) that he has remained true to his campaign promises. But the Finger Pinch specifies ‘in detail’. The choice of hand conveys one piece of information, and its configuration conveys another. The comment clause ends, the parenthesis is closed, but not the development of the notion of ‘counterpart’ initially signified by the change of hand that favours the left, and thus refers to LJ’s Left-wing government. The speaker therefore re-uses the left hand and gives it a configuration that is relevant to its referential function: the left Level Hand above the table “à aucun moment je ne suis en démenti…” (at no time have I been in contradiction…) refers to what is sure and expresses ‘it is a sure fact’ regarding the commitments of the Left. Lastly, the minimum period of time requested to implement his policy is signified by the Gap between the thumb and the index finger held apart in parallel. Like a teacher, the speaker gesturally expresses the mental scenario that underlies his discourse while at the same time conveying gestural information that comes to specify or complement the verbal information. The cognitive and communicative activities are compatible, as Holler and Beattie (2003:â•›152) propose. Most of the gestures performed by this politician are polysigns; they simultaneously evoke two notions: the choice of hand evokes one notion, and its configuration evokes another. The change of hand represents the necessary counterpart in one instance, and the various places or times at which he declared his policy in another instance, while the form taken on by the hand evokes something else: the Ring Â�represents precision; the gap between the fingers measures the necessary period of time; the Fist, a natural weapon, represents strength and, by semantic derivation, all ideas of strength. In each case, the speaker makes use of the various components of the gesture by selecting from each component’s range of possible meanings the one that fits the context of use. He shows himself to be particularly imaginative in the gestural expression of thought by producing bireferential gestures, and sometimes multireferential ones (Calbris 2003a) simultaneously referring to several notions.
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
Among them is the notion of counterpart that recurs throughout the whole utterance and presents us with new evidence of the concept of catchment put forward by McNeill (2002:â•›14). Rarely conscious, the gestural expression of thought is just as relevant and as able as speech to communicate an idea. It does this in a subliminal way: 288 [gaze directed at the Frame configuration] Moi je discute avec notamment ces responsables à Toulouse, [repeated] nous sommes, je suis convaincu que dans les quartiers, si on est capable d’↜approcher ça /…/ eh bien si on cible sur ces Â�problèmes, [clenched Fists] si on essaye de leur apporter des réponses, mais si on leur rappelle aussi la fermeté de la loi, moi je suis convaincu qu’on per, qu’on peut faire reculer l’insécurité. [left Level Hand] Nous allons faire reculer l’insécurité dans ce pays [gaze directed at the Frame configuration] Me I discuss with notably these people in charge in Toulouse, [repeated] we are, I am convinced that in the neighbourhoods, if one is capable of approaching that /…/ ah well if one targets these problems, [clenched Fists] if one tries to find answers to them, but if one also has to remind them of the firmness of the law, me I am convinced that one ca, that one can make insecurity decrease. [left Level Hand] We are going to make insecurity decrease in this country The first gesture with the Frame configuration that occurs twice refers here to the objective that is only verbalized afterwards, “si on cible sur ces problèmes” (if one targets these problems). The second gesture with the Fist configuration refers here to the effort required, “si on essaye de” (if one tries to). The third gesture with the Level Hand refers here to the anticipated accomplishment, “faire reculer l’insécurité↜” (to decrease insecurity). One notices, via the three gestures performed, that the effort to be made (Fist) in order to realize the objective, expressed by the gesture right at the beginning of the sentence (Frame), enables one to perceive the realization of this objective as an established fact (Level Hand). The implication expressed in the effort to attain the objective is so strong that it anticipates the realization. Note that the meaning of not one of the three gestures is translated into words. However, the gesture sequence has a very persuasive effect, even if the phenomenon escapes the consciousness of the speaker and that of the television viewers. It thus appears that the gestural representation of thought and its interpretation by others, both of them rarely conscious, assume an implied and effective referential function.
1.3.1â•… A case of spatialized reasoning The spatialization of non-spatial relations is a phenomenon shared by several cultures and used for representing temporal relations (Calbris 1985) as well as kinship relationships (Enfield 2003). The following example of the spatialization of logico-temporal relations is offered by a management specialist who is explaining how to design a
 Elements of meaning in gesture
project in order to achieve an objective. It is particularly interesting as it synthesizes the representation of several notions – anteriority, the passage of time, progressive Â�accumulation, the present and the future – all within the framework of a spatialized reasoning. 289 On part d’un monde d’hier dans lequel on entassait les connaissances. On va vers un monde de demain dans lequel on essaie de comprendre les Â�comportements d’acteurs dont on aura besoin. Et c’est à partir de ces Â�comportements d’acteurs, qu’à rebours, on bâtit une pédagogie. One departs from a world of yesterday in which one accumulated knowledge. One goes towards a world of tomorrow in which one tries to comprehend the behaviours of actors whom one will need. And it’s on the basis of these Â�behaviours of actors that, going in the reverse direction, one constructs a method of teaching. (see Figure 93.1–10, video 75) 1.
On part d’un monde One departs from a world
The speaker is sitting at a desk, the left hand is folded in the Right Angle configuration with the outside edge of the fingers placed on the edge of the desk, and the right hand is flat in the frontal plane, fingers pointing towards the left hand; the two hands are aligned on the left. He looks at his right hand that is about to move away from the left hand. Then, before displacing the right hand, he turns his head and gazes to the right, thus indicating the direction of the gesture to come.
2. He looks at his right palm, rapidly moved to the right along the edge of the desk.
d’hier of yesterday Figure 93.1–10.╇ Mental space: Example 289 (Continued)
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech  3. Right and left hand immobilized, he gazes at the interlocutor while speaking.
dans lequel on entassait les connaissances. in which one accumulated knowledge.
4. Right forearm moves upwards and forwards.
On va vers un monde de demain One goes towards a world of tomorrow
5. Arm still up in the air, the right hand facing upwards turns around…
dans lequel on essaie de comprendre in which one tries to comprehend Figure 93.1–10.╇ (Continued)
 Elements of meaning in gesture 6. around something which it now encloses in the Pyramid configuration, while the elbow is resting on the desk.
les comportements the behaviours
7. The Pyramid opens and immediately shows its contents.
d’acteurs dont on aura besoin of actors whom one will need.
8. The speaker’s torso moves forwards and his right arm reaches out to attain what he is looking at, the objective that he has just stated verbally.
Et c’est à partir de ces comportements d’acteurs, And it’s on the basis of these behaviours of actors Figure 93.1–10.╇ Mental space: Example 289 (Continued)
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech  9. His torso moves backwards to bring his right hand back to the edge of the desk and return to the present instant, his gaze once again directed at the interlocutor.
qu’à rebours, that, going in the reverse direction, 10. Palms side by side offered to the interlocutor, pro-pose:
on bâtit une pédagogie. one constructs a method of teaching. Figure 93.1–10.╇ (Continued)
Let us examine Example 289 in detail and begin by considering the first gesture. As Figure 93.1–3 shows, gesture does not synchronously illustrate a verbal utterance, word for word. For example, “d’hier” (of yesterday) is not uttered while the hand is moving backwards but to the right, a direction associated with the future in western culture; neither is “entasser” (to accumulate) represented by an upward movement that is able to represent accumulation.
1.3.1.1â•… The gesture is a synthetic representation of the thought.â•… All the elements of the kinesic ensemble shown in Figure 93.1–3 are relevant. From the beginning of the movement from the left, we know from the anticipatory head movement and eye gaze to the right that the right hand will move to the right, “On part d’un monde” (One departs from a world, Figure 93.1). What does its path from left to right represent? The result of this movement is a large gap between the hands on the desk which simultaneously represents the passage of time and the accumulation of knowledge that
 Elements of meaning in gesture
was acquired in the world “d’hier” (of yesterday, 93.2). The (probably non-conscious) choice of the transverse axis to represent anteriority on the left, the passage of time and the accumulation of knowledge by the distance between the hands, includes the underlying notion of the present. Indeed, the speaker respects symbolic conventions (see Chapter 6, Gesture variants of time): the present is situated on the vertical axis of the body, the passage of time is represented by a distance, the anterior moment is localized on the left, and the whole thought is synthesized in a single transverse gesture that travels along the edge of the desk to a perfectly staged tempo and is equivalent to: ‘we left there, … and we have arrived here’ … here and now because the edge of the desk is immediately in front of the speaker’s body, the reference point for the present moment (see Chapter 6, Figure 43). This synthetic gestural representation relies on the fact that the transverse axis can replace the other two axes. It can substitute the vertical axis that represents the phenomena of growth or accumulation on a scale from low to high (‘to accumulate knowledge’), on the one hand. It can equally substitute the sagittal axis that represents spatio-temporal progression from back to front (past-present-future), on the other. The transfer of the vertical axis to the sagittal axis, and then to the transverse axis, is made possible by the fact that all three axes are axes of physical progression on which the processes of growth (vertical axis), walking (sagittal axis), and writing (transverse axis) take place in reality and are symbolized accordingly. The most motorically efficient transfer is to the transverse axis: the opposing notions that may be localized on this axis on the left and the right are, respectively, lower and higher values, anteriority and posteriority, and cause and effect (Calbris 2002, 2003d, 2008).
1.3.1.2â•… The gesture is an anticipatory synthesis.â•… In the gesture shown in Figure 93.1–3, the synthetic gestural representation of the notions expressed anticipates their verbalization even more clearly than usual. The point of departure in the past is localized on the left before the first word has been spoken. Likewise, ‘accumulated knowledge’ is represented by moving the right hand away from the left hand. As this occurs while the word “d’hier” (of yesterday) is being uttered, the gestural representation of the accumulated knowledge precedes its verbalization “dans lequel on entassait les connaissances” (in which one accumulated knowledge, 93.3) which is not accompanied by a gesture. The idea is gesturalized during one verbal unit and verbalized during the subsequent verbal unit. The time-lag between the two channels of information, the one which is less informative preceding the other, creates suspense and maintains attention (see Chapter 9, Interplay between tension and relaxation in communicating information). The deictic gaze has a complementary, instructive function. The eye gaze directed at the gesture attracts attention to the gestural formulation of the idea, whose subsequent verbal formulation is visually addressed to the interlocutor.
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
1.3.1.3â•… The gesture is an anticipatory and a complementary synthesis of the Â�utterance.â•… The rapidity of the movement representing the passage of time during the production of the single word “d’hier” (of yesterday), performed with the backs of the fingers that seem to quickly drive something away to the right and make a clean sweep, could express that this past is obsolete, that yesterday’s world has been wiped out. Today is the beginning of a new era that is opening in front of oneself. The gestural information that completes the utterance “On part d’un monde d’hier dans lequel on entassait les connaissances” (One departs from a world of yesterday in which one accumulated knowledge) could be translated into words as ‘this world is obsolete from now on’. The interpretation relies on the fact that if the speaker did not want to express this underlying idea, then he would have opted for a different tempo for performing the same gesture, which would have accompanied the whole utterance: [left hand put on the table] On part [leaving the immobile left hand, the right hand goes from left to right (93.2)] d’un monde d’hier dans lequel on entassait les connaissances (from a world of yesterday in which one accumulated knowledge). Indeed, conducting an interpretive analysis also implies comparing the ‘actual’ gestural realization with other possible ‘virtual’ realizations given the same situation. The speaker treats the past with disdain and situates himself in the present. Let us look at what happens next in the mental scenario (Figure 93.4–7). Making a very ample movement of the right forearm, extended upwards and forwards, he designates a portion of space far away in front of himself: is it a target, a distant object to be acquired, a distant place towards which he is mentally projecting himself? “On va vers un monde de demain” (One goes towards a world of tomorrow, Figure 93.4): gesturally situating the future world in the space in front of himself, it is there that the speaker designates the objective to be attained. At the end of his arm, still extended and maintained in the air – meaning that the speaker is maintaining himself and signifying that we are to maintain ourselves with him, still mentally there, in front, in tomorrow’s world – the right hand, facing upwards, turns around a portion of space that it surrounds. It seems to simultaneously sculpt an aerial volume, to surround the space occupied by the object that it has just shaped, in order to grasp it better, “dans lequel on essaie de comprendre” (in which one tries to comprehend, 93.5). The gesture is an analogy to a manoeuvre of approaching a concrete object in order to get hold of it and shows that the mental ‘grasping’7 of a phenomenon is conceived as a movement to get hold of an abstract object. A physical aspect of the gesture attracts our attention. The regular, smooth displacement of the hand, similar to that observed in everyday life when the aim is to get a good grip on an object without
.â•… Fr. ‘appréhension’ derived from Lat. ‘ad’ and ‘prehensio’ meaning ‘towards’ and ‘prehension’ respectively.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
attracting attention, becomes significant. The fluidity of the Â�gesture could represent the surreptitious manoeuvre of delicately grasping the desired object, verbally expressed by “on essaie de (com)prendre” (one tries to (com)prehend). The stylistic deviation from the norm, presumed to be neutral, becomes significant as it expresses the speaker’s attitude towards the abstract object he wants to attain. Being a conveyor of information, the quality of the movement imbues the gesture with a Â�particular style. The style of the gesture becomes just as relevant as its form and direction. In the gesture sequence shown in Figure 93.5–7, the turning movement of the fingers sculpts the empty space enclosed in the Pyramid configuration that opens almost as soon as it has been formed. The rotational movement initiated with the hand open (5) ends with the fingers closing to form the Pyramid containing the abstract object in question, “les comportements” (the behaviours, .6). The fingers open almost immediately like petals revealing the hidden content inside (see ‘From opening to explaining’ in this chapter). Displayed, recognized, the abstract object thus identified is verbally definable: “(les comportements) d’acteurs” (the behaviours of actors, .7). The interactive merging of the verbal and the gestural information appears perfectly smooth.
1.3.1.4â•… The stylistic effect created by the gesture is part of the expression.â•… The rapid sequencing of the successive gestures flowing into one single movement (Figure 93.5–7) recalls the aesthetic movement sequences of the magician who continuously creates different objects. With a conjuring trick of the hand sculpting empty space (5), the object created and hidden in the hand (6) reappears and is offered like a blossoming rose (7). But the person who is showing himself to be a magician is nonetheless a manager. The creator of the future has a sense of reality. The success of the virtual object is being worked towards from now on, which is what his co-speech referential gestures make quite clear. As the speaker has just presented a vision of something that does not yet exist, he gesturally reminds his interlocutor that he has mentally projected him into a future world, and that in order to obtain what will be done (Figure 93.8), it is necessary now – the speaker leaps back to the present situation by moving in the opposite Â�direction (Figure 93.9) – to pro-pose this method of teaching (Figure 93.10): (93.8) The speaker reminds the interlocutor that what he has just represented Â�gesturally remains the objective to be attained: [his torso moves forwards and the right arm reaches out to attain what he is looking at (= ‘to have that out there’, i.e. the objective to be attained and already stated verbally)]: *Et c’est à partir de ces comportements d’acteurs (And it’s on the basis of these behaviours of actors) * = to have that out there (the objective I have just stated)
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
(93.9) [his torso projects backwards in a single curved movement in the sagittal plane, bringing the right hand back to its original position (on the edge of the desk and aligned with the vertical axis of his body representing the present instant), this time with the eye gaze directed at the interlocutor-camera (as if visually impressing upon him what he is signifying via gesture and voice)]: *qu’à rebours (that, going in the reverse direction) * = here and now (93.10) [his palms, side by side, seem to offer an object to the interlocutor who is being gazed at]: *on bâtit une pédagogie (one constructs a method of teaching) * = one pro-poses this The open hands being a known sign of obviousness, the gesture cited (93.10) can equally underline the obviousness of taking the prerequisite measures for the future success now. As we have just seen, co-speech referential gestures, which give numerous physical indications of the thoughts of the speaker who is in the process of expressing himself, allow us to mentally put ourselves in his place. In summary, Example 289 was initially chosen to demonstrate spatialized reasoning that employs the referential function of gesture. Studying it has permitted us to reveal the different relations maintained between the co-speech gestural referent and the verbal referent: the former may anticipate or complement the latter. It has also permitted us to reveal the multireferentiality of gesture, i.e. the capacity of one gesture to have multiple referents, each gestural component being the conveyor of a meaning activated by the verbal context. This is evidenced by the gesture in Figure 93.2, where the right hand leaves the immobile left hand (→ the past) by moving from left to the right (→ the passage of time) thus creating a large gap between the two hands (→ the accumulation of knowledge) presented to the interlocutor via eye gaze. The above analysis of Example 289 also addresses the question of how one determines what constitutes a gestural unit of meaning. In principle, any unit acquires its individual status by contrast with other units that mutually delimit themselves. A gestural unit of meaning, it too, is identified by contrasting a given gesture with other gestures. To arrive at a better interpretation of a gesture in a given context, one implicitly opposes it to other gestures that are possible in the same situation. One mentally compares it with virtual gestures that are in absentia but plausible and form part of the commonly shared experience of the cultural group in question. This approach adopts Saussure’s (1916) concept of a language as a system of linguistic signs whose values are determined by relations of mutual opposition; here, different plausible gestures are opposed on the paradigmatic (vertical) axis of substitution (see Chapter 1, Â�Gestural
 Elements of meaning in gesture
sequencing) in order to isolate and determine symbolic gestural values. Thus, the Â�comparison of a given gesture in relation to a norm or another plausible gesture which would result in a different meaning brings to light the symbolic value of a component and, essentially, the relevant physical element of the component which conveys this semantic element. For example, the rapidity of a movement or the fluidity of a gesture sequence, as in the sequence shown in Figure 93.5–7. Moreover, one can ask oneself if the quality (rapidity, strength, suppleness) of a referential movement connotes the referent evoked by the movement. Or if the speed of the movement is similar to a gestural component and itself becomes a new referential entity, the attribute of an entity thus becoming a new signifying entity. Indeed, a difference in the duration of a movement is sometimes just as relevant as a difference in the shape of the movement. Let us return to the primary aim of analysing Example 289, the spatialization of non-spatial relations through gesture. The speaker displays a high degree of coherence in his spatial representation of temporal and logico-temporal relations. He physically situates the present on the vertical axis of his body, on the edge of the desk right next to his body; the future and all his visionary creations connected with it are situated in the distance, in front of him, on the other side of the desk. Having presented a glimpse of a future creation as a reality, he feels the ‘pedagogical’ need to gesturally remind his interlocutor that he was projecting himself into a virtual future world, there on the other side of the desk, and that it is time to return to the present reality, symbolically situated on the side of the desk where he is actually sitting, in order to prepare tomorrow’s world hic et nunc. Moreover, Example 289 demonstrates how a co-speech gesture that is a figurative representation of time can become a polysign simultaneously referring to the past, the present, and passage of time in between.
1.4â•… A frequently occurring gesture reveals the unconscious The statistical analysis of recurrent gestures observed in discourse compared with their contextual meanings discloses signifying correlations whose core meaning surpasses particular contexts. It will now be argued that the frequency with which a speaker uses a given gesture reveals his unconscious point of view.
1.4.1â•… The Frame configuration Let us reconsider gestures with the Frame configuration, characterized by vertical palms, face to face, pointing forwards (for selected examples see Chapter 5, One configuration, but different movements: Sample 2). A study of the gestures performed by the socialist Lionel Jospin (LJ) in six television programmes recorded during his first year of office as the Prime Minister (Calbris 2003d) has brought to light the frequency with which he uses the Frame configuration. In the three hours of data gathered it
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
recurs 289 times and is employed in different senses, but in three times out of four (217 out of 289) it represents an abstract object. However, he also uses numerous gesture variants with a straight or a curved-line movement to evoke an abstract object. The index finger designates it (Index). The hand shows it (Oblique Palm). The fingers of one hand converged on a point (Pyramid) target the abstract object. The spread-out fingers of one hand encircle the abstract entity (Bowl, palm facing downwards). The abstract object is delimited and identified between the palms (Frame), or it is kept available under the hand (Level Hand).8 Why does LJ have this predilection for the Frame configuration? Is this recurrence, highly significant on the statistical level, equally significant on the psychological level? Could it be that LJ preferred this gesture to others because of its polysemy? (see Chapter 8, The semantic nuancing of a variant due to the gesture’s polysemy). Probably yes. LJ’s marked preference for the Frame configuration variant to represent abstract objects during the course of these six interviews is even more surprising because during the presidential election debate broadcast on television in 1995 he tended to use the Pyramid configuration instead. With the fingers pointing downwards, his hand was thus transformed into a pointer to focus attention on an abstract object and to point it out (Calbris & Tournier 1999). Thereafter he does not use Pyramid configuration at all. Could it be that, as the leader of the opposition, he was pointing out what was not working? And that once in power he has a different position, and gestures with the Frame configuration synthetically express his new point of view better than the other gesture variants at his disposal? It is a configuration whose polysemy LJ spontaneously exploits because it can evoke notions that promote his new agenda: the way forwards, delimitation, or determination in its various senses, e.g. to define the scope of something or to decide, and lastly, it can represent an objective. Hence his very clear predilection for this configuration, which physically displays symmetry, equilibrium, delimitation, direction forwards, and scope, is understandable because of its compatibility with his new political perspective. One sees in this example how his attitude towards his new function is even reflected in his choice of gesture variant for referring to an abstract object.
1.4.2â•… The differentiated use of the right hand and the left hand Another statistical analysis of LJ was conducted to study the alternating use of his hands, which is extremely frequent and even more striking in quick succession! Is this change of hands meaningful? Before carrying out a qualitative analysis to investigate its semantic relevance, a quantitative analysis to establish its statistical
.╅
See Appendix A for illustrations of the hand configurations cited in this paragraph.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Â� significance Â�produced the following results: the percentages of gestures with different Â�configurations performed with both hands (43.5%), the right hand (35.5%), or the left hand (21%) during the six television programmes imply that he is both an ambidextrous and a right-handed individual (see Table 32). In the analysis of the sequences of configurations not involving a change of hand(s), one observes the same tendency to maintain the use of both hands (82% of symmetrical gestures in a row), or the right hand (69%), but not the left hand (54%). Here again, LJ appears to be ambidextrous and right handed (respectively 82% and 69% of gestures in a row). The interpretation put forward below argues that the right-handed individual sets himself apart from someone else, the ‘other’, situated on his left, and the ambidextrous left-wing politician uses his left hand to set himself apart from right-wing politics. Table 32.╇ Percentage of gestures using different configurations performed during six 30-minute television programmes amounting to a total of 3 hours of data.
% of gestures: of which gestures in a row: of which isolated gestures:
left hand
both hands
right hand
21 54 46 100
43.5 82 18 100
35.5= 100 69 31 100
1.4.2.1â•… The Left in politics.â•… Every allusion to the left-wing government, such as decision making marked by lowering the edge of the hand in the Right Angle configuration, or inciting the State represented by advancing the Right Angle configuration, is signified with the left hand. The same applies to left-wing commitments, in that the objective is displayed as the objective targeted by the government. They are all represented by the left hand that adopts different configurations according to the notion to be simultaneously represented: the commitments taken on or the decisions considered to be accepted are ‘maintained’ (Fr. ‘maintenues’: ‘main’ meaning ‘hand’; ‘tenues’ meaning ‘held’) by the Level Hand on the table; the programme is put forward by the Palm Forward held up high in front of the speaker; the edge of the Rigid Hand pointing upwards (like the prow of the ‘governmental boat’) advances towards the targeted objective. 1.4.2.2â•… Me.â•… The quantitative analysis indicates that LJ is an ambidextrous right hander. While he is thinking and reasoning, should we expect to see him performing gestures with his right hand when he is speaking for himself and no longer speaking on behalf of the government? This is indeed the case as notions directly linked with personal reasoning are evoked with the right hand: 94% of his verbal clarifications are accompanied by gestures of the right hand. The same is true for 90% of the gestures with the Ring configuration denoting exactitude and rigour.
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
1.4.2.3â•… Me/the Left: split personality.â•… LJ is led to express himself both as an individual and as a leading left-wing politician. The private man thus expresses himself with the right hand, and the public figure with the left (Calbris 1999). Below are some examples in which his gesturing shows that he is led to divide himself in two while saying “I”. For example, he designates himself with the right hand to show his personal involvement in discussions with the public, “in the field”, but he designates himself a second time with the left hand as an elected left-wing official: 290 (of which Example 145 in Chapter 6 is a part) Et puis, [right hand towards the speaker] moi je discute sur le terrain parce que [left hand] un élu, élu national [in a forward movement] mais aussi élu [and towards the speaker] local comme je le suis And then, [right hand towards the speaker] me, I discuss in the field because [left hand] an elected official, a national elected official [in a forward movement] but also an elected official [and towards the speaker] local like me (see Figure 94)9
Moi, je discute sur le terrain ... Me, I discuss in the field … The individual
élu local comme je le suis a local elected official like me The representative of the Left
Figure 94.1–2.╇ Split personality (Calbris 2003d: 69)
In Example 291, the reasoning man once again gestures with his right hand when referring to his hypothetical views and then abruptly changes to using the left hand when referring to his activity as a left-wing politician: 291 [right hand] Alors je pense que cette crise sera salutaire. Si au contraire /…/. Mais [right hand] c’est indiscutablement la première hypothèse que je Â�favorise. En tout cas, [left hand] c’est de cette façon moi que je continuerai, pas Â�simplement à parler aux Français quand vous m’inviterez, mais à agir.
.╅
English word order: ‘… but also an elected local official like me.’
 Elements of meaning in gesture
[right hand] So I think that this crisis will be healthy. If on the contrary /…/. But [right hand] it’s undeniably the first hypothesis that I favour. In any case, [left hand] it’s in this way, me, that I’ll continue, not simply by speaking to the French people when you invite me to, but by acting.
1.4.2.4â•… Otherness.â•… The symmetry of the body evokes the notion of a bipartite structure, the separation into two halves implying two juxtaposed and comparable entities that are perceived as equivalent, complementary, and sometimes opposed. When matters arise concerning oneself and another person, ‘me’ has priority and the ‘other’ is of secondary importance. This dichotomy is adopted by the body. For a righthander, ‘me’ and my priorities are felt to be on the right; the ‘other’ and everything that is considered to be subsidiary are situated on the left. Is the inverse true for a lefthander? Perhaps. In any case, the allusion to the ‘other’, experienced as something different and foreign, supposes some kind of change of sides. The change of side expresses ‘otherness’. Thus, LJ adopts the left hand for the reported speech of the President, and the right hand for his own discourse: 292 Le Président m’avait dit très nettement: [left hand] moi, je suis engagé par le pacte de stabilité. [right hand] Moi, j’ai pas changé de point de vue sur le pacte de stabilité, mais le… The President had told me very clearly: [left hand] me, I’m committed by the Â�stability pact. [right hand] Me, I haven’t changed my mind about the stability pact, but the… Table 33 lists numerous other examples whose comparison demonstrates that the notions of ‘self ’ and the ‘other’ are extendable respectively: the ‘self ’ is always on the right, and the ‘other’ is always on the left. One passes from oneself as an individual to one’s own group, country, and continent respectively opposed to the ‘other’ individual, his group, country, and continent. Table 33.╇ Others and Oneself OTHERS Left hand
ONESELF Right hand
Him: Chirac Him: a protestor Them Luxembourg Foreign country Germany USA
Me Me Us France France France Europe
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
2.╅ The symbolic extracted from the physical Recalling the main tenet of this book that our symbolic world is a construction built on the basis of the physical experience of our bodies, we shall now examine how �gestural signs may be derived from reflexes, symptoms, or physical actions.
2.1â•… From the reflex or the symptom to the gestural sign Certain gestures localize a source of pain on the body while easing the pain by ‘manual acupuncture’. Does one do this for a physical or a psychological reason? One may place one’s hand on one’s stomach not due to hunger or over-eating but to signify annoyance, irritation (Ça me donne des aigreurs d’estomac, That gives me stomach ache), anxiety or fear (J’en suis toute tourneboulée, (lit.) I’m turned completely upside down, meaning ‘in a flap about something’), or moral disgust (Dégueulasse, ce qu’il a fait, Disgusting, what he did). The adjective ‘dégueulasse’ is derived from the verb ‘dégueuler’ (vulg.) meaning ‘to vomit’. The transition from the physical meaning (J’ai mal digéré, I’ve got indigestion) to the psychological meaning (C’est horrible, That’s horrible) occurs via a psychosomatic reaction: what has happened is so awful that it makes you vomit. Likewise, sentences such as Ce que tu m’as fait peur! (You really frightened me!), Ça me va droit au coeur (That goes straight to my heart), and Ça m’a donné un coup au cœur (That hit my heart) may be spoken with the hand on the heart in view of the cardiac reactions provoked by emotions such as surprise, joy, and sorrow. These psychosomatic reactions linking the physical to the psychological in a contiguous way explain the transition to gestural expression that concretely signifies an abstract reality.
2.1.1â•… The reflexes of self-protection Reflexes of self-protection, gestural or facial, are reproduced in everyday conversation (see Chapter 8, The semantics of physical refusal). The reflex of gestural self-protection, Palm(s) Forwards, becomes a sign of defence. The extension of the possibilities it offers on the semantic level corresponds to a readaptation of the sign on the physical level, which is translated by a reduction or an increase in the surface area of the manual shield: two palms in the frontal plane are replaced by one palm, then one single finger. Inversely, an increase in the self-protective surface area may be obtained statically by using both Palms Forwards or dynamically by a single or a repeated transverse movement of one or both palms sweeping across the space in front of the speaker. These are all gesture variants of negation (see Â�Chapter 8, Â�Correspondence between the analogical link and a variant’s use: The case of negation).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
The reflex of self-protection is not solely manual. It is manifested in the eyes and the mouth. In excessively strong light, one frowns and squints. This mimed reflex, which is associated with a grimace and a wrinkling of the nose, signifies any kind of literal or figurative displeasure and is also a sign of refusal: 293 A renowned sociologist gives an account of someone else’s reaction: [grimace] Ils me disaient: [frown] Non non, [then with the eyes closed while the hand rejects sideways] on n’aime pas. [grimace] They said to me: [frown] No no, [then with the eyes closed while the hand rejects sideways] we don’t like that. As for the mouth, it vomits or pushes something away by protruding the lips. The fact that doubt and reprobation, i.e. intellectual and affective refusal respectively, are expressed by protruding closed lips in addition to frowning suggests that this type of pout is equivalent to pushing the palm outwards. The act of pushing something away can be transposed from the hand to the mouth by protruding the lips: 294 A right-wing politician contradicts a journalist’s negative comment: [pout Â�followed by shaking the index finger and the head] Non non (No no)
2.1.2â•… The reflex of evasion The reflex of evasion is also used in gestural expression. One distances the mouth, the nose (Darwin 1872:â•›274, Jakobson 1960:â•›213–219), and the eyes from the source of the unpleasant taste, smell, or sight – literally and figuratively – by turning the head away*, *Je ne peux pas le voir (*I can’t see it); *Je ne peux pas le sentir (*I can’t smell it). The Â�following example was quoted in Chapter 8: 231 A young woman drawn into a conversation about sexual relations between handicapped people turns her head away as she closes her eyes*: *Ça semble repoussant (*that seems repulsive). We have seen that a baby who refuses food turns his head to one side, then the other if one insists. The lateral head shake used as a sign of refusal or denial seems clearly inspired by this instinctive movement discussed at length in Chapter 8 (The semantics of physical refusal).
2.1.3â•… The reflex of recoiling The reflex of recoiling is another type of avoidance. Instead of taking a step backwards or arching the whole body backwards, one pulls the torso and the head backwards with a neck stiff*. This movement conveys the impression of shock in response to an erroneous statement that someone has made: *Mais si, il travaillait! (*But on the contrary, he was working!) corrects this elderly woman. The recoiling may be re-enacted,
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
as in the case below, already quoted in Chapter 8, in which an academic is reporting a dialogue: 237 – Est-ce que c’est cet apprentissage qui est la cause? – [torso recoils] Non, dit Adam Smith, c’est absolument pas la cause parce que ces métiers là peuvent [torso recoils] parfaitement être appris en deux ans [torso recoils slightly, frown] et pas en douze! (video 58) – Is it this apprenticeship that is the reason? – [torso recoils] *No!, says Adam Smith, it’s absolutely not the reason because those occupations can [torso recoils] perfectly be learned in two years [torso recoils slightly, frown] and not in twelve!10 The shock reaction reported at the beginning of the sentence, Non (No), recurs at key moments in the explanation. Accompanying parfaitement (perfectly), it implies ‘contrary to what one dares to say’. Accompanying et pas (and not), it announces the ‘scandal’: twelve instead of two years! It would be interesting to verify the physical features that each culture extracts from the various physical reflexes of rejection, self-protection, and evasion and converts into co-speech facial expressions.
2.2â•… From the act to the gestural sign Reflexes and symptoms serve as signs in everyday conversation. Can the mimicry of a physical action also serve as a co-speech sign?11 Yes. In Chapter 1, it was stated that “with the hand, we act and we signify”; hence, it is argued that manual gestures can signify what they do in everyday activities via mimetic representation. Let us now study the transition from action to sign, or more precisely the transition from the gestural representation of the act to that of the notion. To demonstrate this proposal, I am going to use the theme of cutting12 because of the variety it offers, as much from the physical as from the ideational point of view, and because the original concrete referents are still in current usage: man continues to manipulate numerous familiar objects that cut (knife, razor, scissors); others are used technically (axe, machete, scythe, secateurs), or for deliberately aggressive purposes (sabre, the guillotine). .â•… English word order: ‘No!, says Adam Smith, it’s absolutely not the reason because these occupations can be perfectly learned in two years and not in twelve!’ .â•… The answer is stated in the title of Kendon’s (2004a) book, Gesture: Visible Action as Â�Utterance, and summarized in his conclusion: 360–361. .â•… The following pages offer an abridged version Calbris 2003c. For a detailed explanation with examples, see Gesture 3.1, 19–46.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
The demonstration will proceed from the concrete to the abstract; it begins with the gestural representation of actions involving objects that cut, and then the ways in which gesture represents concrete or abstract notions derived from cutting will be considered. We shall see how an ideal, abstract, and adaptable prototype for creating gestural representations is constructed from its origin in concrete acts.
2.2.1â•… The representation of acts of cutting A gesture representing a given act of cutting reproduces what is perceptually pertinent: the large or small blade, the object that moves, its localization in relation to the body, its orientation in relation to the surface that is cut, and the direction of the single or repeated movement. These perceived elements are the parameters that are specified in order to construct the protopype. The representation of each act of cutting (slitting the throat, cutting with scissors, shaving) is already an operation of abstraction in that the perceptually distinctive elements of each act must be extracted from reality, and then be evoked in a stylized and synthetic way in a schematic and motorically efficient gesture. Mimesis is a mental operation of abstraction with concrete input and output. As indicated above (Gestural symbolization of the concrete), gesture refers more often to a notion extracted from an action than to the concrete action itself. Let us take an example of a mimetic co-speech gesture. With the back of his fingers in the horizontal plane at throat level and ‘the blade of his index finger’ pointing towards himself, the speaker transversally cuts the space in front of his throat* as if he were slitting it (see Figure 95). The co-speech gesture replies to a question concerning the fate of the person who has become problematic: 295 – Et s’il devient gênant, tu sais ce qu’il faut faire? – *Ça oui je sais, ce sera vite terminé. – And if he becomes a problem, you know what you’ve got to do? – *Yes I know that, it’ll be done quickly.
Figure 95.╇ Decapitation (Zaü in Calbris & Montredon 1986: 86)
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
By representing a stylized decapitation of himself, the speaker evokes not so much the method of elimination but what it characterizes, i.e. the act of physically killing someone, quickly and definitively. In reality, the individual to be eliminated would probably be shot. Furthermore, from the semiotic point of view, one notices that the link established between the gesture and its meaning is not direct: it supposes a link of resemblance followed by a link of contiguity. The hand that acts as if it were slitting a throat represents a decapitation through resemblance and, via the decapitation, it refers to all kinds of ways of physically eliminating someone quickly and definitively. The mimetic gesture evokes the idea of elimination rather than the means used to eliminate, even if it evokes the idea by evoking the means employed.
2.2.2â•… The representation of the schema of cutting We obtain our gestural prototype of cutting abstracted from reality by extracting what all the acts of cutting have in common and what summarizes them all: the movement of a blade against something, expressed by brusquely halting the rapid movement of the edge of the Rigid Hand (see Chapter 5, Figure 31.11). Gesture variants of the schema of cutting are presented in Figure 96. The prototypical cutting tool would be the most ancient one, i.e. an axe or one of its antecedents used to carve up game, chop wood, or shape stone. The initial flint tool – hard, rigid, tapered, hewn with force – would explain the prototypical co-speech gesture of cutting characterized by abruptly halting an energetic, rapid, downward movement of the Rigid Hand in the sagittal plane. Abruptly halting the edge of the hand as it moves downwards reflects the shock of the edge of the blade hitting an object. The impact of the cutting edge detaches a fragment, breaks the object in two or creates a gap. One may obtain the desired result by repeated blows on the same spot. Can one see in this act the foundations of notions such as the division into two halves or pieces, the gap of demarcation, the insistent execution of beats? Can one imagine in the act of cutting and in the detached fragment that results from it, the ideas of amputation and definitive separation? The schema of cutting is there. It is perceived and, connecting the perceived act to its perceived results, it carries a meaning that is applicable in all domains, concrete or abstract. For example, gesture A, inspired by the blow of a prototypical axe, represents the impression of a break, a ‘breakthrough’ in the history of photography just as well as the rigid, authoritarian, cutting character of someone one would call ‘abrupt’ (Fr. cassant). Contrary to appearances, the gesture does not illustrate the French word ‘casser’ (to break) in its figurative senses. It expresses the synthesis composed of diverse perceptual experiences; it expresses the schema that generates and links its senses. In order to advance an explanation of the schema of cutting contained in different gestures (A, B, C, D, A2, B2, C2, AAA, BBB), let us envisage the principal Â�analogical
 Elements of meaning in gesture
links that these gestures manifest by grouping them under two main headings: �separation into pieces and stopping a process. Hand orientation (plane)
sagittal
frontal
horizontal
horizontal
towards oneself
towards the ground
towards the sky
downwards
downwards
to the right
to the left
Single movement of the right hand
A
B
C
Symmetrical movement of both hands
A2
B2
C2
AAA
BBB
Palm facing The cutting edge of the hand moves
Repeated movement of the right hand
D
Key. The gestures are organized in the columns according to hand orientation and in the rows according to single, symmetrical and repeated movements. From the viewpoint of the gesturer, the back of the hand is represented by parallel lines and the palm by the absence of lines.
Figure 96.╇ Codification of the gesture variants of the schema of cutting (Calbris 2003c: 30)
2.2.2.1╅ Separation.╅ The repeated lowering of the edge of the Rigid Hand combined with a lateral movement to the right [AAA] represents the act of cutting something into pieces or slices. The edge of the hand laterally cuts up sections of space that �become a corresponding number of isolated entities (elements). These are considered in succession as the cutting continues over time (analysis). The division into elements is thus spatial and temporal, and this operational schema corresponds to a physical activity just as it does to a mental activity. Let us return to my proposal. One shifts
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
from the idea of the act to its results produced over time: the first fragment detached on one side (A. separation of an element), then the second fragment that is cut out on both sides (A2. definition of an element). The symmetrical variant [A2], characterized by lowering the edges of both Rigid Hands facing each other, i.e. the Frame configuration, synthetically reproduces the result of successive cuts (A2 = AA). By delimiting a segment on both sides, the gesture determines and defines an object, which may be concrete or abstract (see Figure 97): (
|
(
A |
Separation A2 | Definition
|
|
|
|
| AAA |
|
|
Segmentation Analysis Figure 97.╇ Results of cutting
Furthermore, the cut signified by the movement of the edge of the hand coming to an abrupt halt is specified by the plane in which it occurs, evoking the notions of ‘division’ in the sagittal plane [A], ‘obstacle’ in the frontal plane [B], and ‘totality’ in the horizontal plane [C]. In the horizontal plane, the upward orientation of the palm [D] adds the element of meaning ‘at the base of ’. Thus, a physicosemantic nuancing of the notion of cutting inherent to each plane is produced: cut in two in the sagittal plane [A], cut-obstacle in the frontal plane [B], total cut in the horizontal plane if the palm is facing downwards [C], and cut at the base if the palm is facing upwards [D] (see Chapter 8, The notion of cutting and all its gestural and semantic variants; Figure 79). The gesture is indeed a composite unit, each component of which (Â�movement of the edge of the hand, plane in which the movement is performed) is the conveyor of an element of meaning.
2.2.2.2â•… Stopping a process.â•… The gestures of cutting already cited are performed in three planes: the sagittal plane A (gesture A), the frontal plane B (gesture B) and the horizontal plane C (gesture C). As explained in Chapter 8 (Figure 78), each plane is able to counter a progression along the axis to which it is perpendicular. Here, Figure 98
 Elements of meaning in gesture
specifies their motivation. The sagittal plane A is perpendicular to an axis of progression that is transverse and oriented to the right. In the Occident we use it to read and write. Hence, it is proposed that gesture A represents stopping a logico-temporal path. The frontal plane B is perpendicular to the sagittal axis that our experience of walking orients from back to front. Hence, gesture B represents stopping a spatio-temporal path. The horizontal plane C is perpendicular to the vertical axis that we naturally orient from down to up given our experience of the process of growth, constantly observed in nature and characterized by a maximum height. Hence, gesture C represents stopping a process of maturation (Calbris 2002:â•›54).
Stopping a process
with the right hand
any kind of process (axis of writing)
in the sagittal plane A, gesture A
personal (axis of walking)
in the frontal plane B, gesture B
developmental (axis of growth)
in the horizontal plane C, gesture C
Figure 98.╇ Planes stopping an ongoing process (Calbris 2003c: 38) (Scan Gesture 3:1, 38)
2.2.2.3â•… Separation and stopping.â•… Each one of the gestures A, B, and C can simultaneously refer to separation by cutting, on the one hand, and to stopping an ongoing process, on the other. It combines both elements of meaning, ‘separation’ and ‘stopping’, which mutually specify each other (see Figure 99). Gesture A in the sagittal plane represents stopping any kind of process (axis of writing), the cut into two halves (schema of symmetry), and therefore the decisive cut in any process whatsoever. Gesture B in the frontal plane represents stopping a Â�process that has a personal character (axis of walking), the obstacle between two Â�partners Â�facing each other, and therefore the interruption of an exchange. Gesture C in the Â�horizontal plane represents stopping a process of maturation that has reached its limit (axis of growth), the total cut (panoramic movement sweeping the horizon), and therefore the eliminating, total, definitive cut. Gesture D represents the cut at the base (movement of the scythe at ground level), stopping a process of growth at its inception, and therefore the cut at the base at the beginning of the process.
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech  Gesture A
Gesture B
Gesture C
Gesture D
Cut
in two (bodily symmetry)
between partners (face to face exchange)
total (sweeping the horizon)
total (at the base)
Stopping a
logico-temporal process
spatio-temporal process
developmental process
developmental process at its inception
proceeding from
left to right back to front (axis of writing) (axis of walking)
below to above (axis of growth)
below to above (axis of growth)
Figure 99.╇ Synthetic representations of each variant of cutting (Calbris 2003c: 43)
Let us continue with gesture variants that consist in the repeated movement of a single hand (see Figure 96). The repeated gesture AAA cuts an object into pieces (separation) and marks the timing of a logical progression (the stops along the way). It therefore represents analysis, i.e. considering the elements obtained as they are cut off one by one. The repeated gesture BBB does not cut an object into pieces but segments the personal spatio-temporal course of action. It therefore represents the stages envisaged in the project in question. In conclusion, the action of making a clean cut implies the characteristics of the tool (1), the act (2), and its result (3): initially, the hardness and rigidity of the tool (1), then the force and brevity of the blow (2), the shock of the cutting edge as it makes contact, and finally the chip in the surface and the separation, the production of a piece(s), and the irreversibility of the act (3). The gesture of rapidly lowering the Rigid Hand, through the force of its projected cutting edge being brought to an instant halt, can represent the analogical abstractions created from each characteristic and evoke the rigidity of the actor, the brusqueness of the unexpected event, and its irreversible character. The schema of cutting is a visual and proprioceptive percept13. As discussed in Chapter 3, the discovery of mirror neurons explains the interaction observed between seeing and producing a gesture. The interlocutor empathically perceives and feels the proprioceptive characteristics of the gesture performed: the rigidity of the fingers, the
.â•… In a recent article ‘Une morphologie de la gestualité: structuration articulaire’, Boutet (2008) insists on the importance of the proprioceptive modality.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
muscular tension, the force deployed in the movement, the voluntary control, and the mastery of the ability to stop the movement instantaneously and maintain a motionless position. The meaning is in the gesture, in the physical feeling of performing the gesture. The understanding of the gesture is physical. Note that an individual’s abrupt character that implies rigidity, stopping rapidly, quick change (characteristics common to the act, the gesture, and the individual) entails the same sensations of seizure, rigidity, stopping, and quick change that come to be mirrored in the interlocutor’s body. The perceptions are felt to be equivalent in both the chop of the axe and in the mimetic gesture, in both the body of the abrupt individual and in the body of the interlocutor. This schema of cutting, combining the notions of separation and stopping a process, corresponds to a break in a continuum. It represents the division of an entity as well as the interruption of a course of action. The decapitated tree, the notch in a trunk, the tree fallen across the road, and the ravine are all perceived as breaks in a continuum. Indeed, the length of an object or the extent of a surface and the distance to be covered become conflated, the length being experienced as a distance covered, mentally or visually. In reality, the physical, spatio-temporal path from one place to another goes from point A to point B, where the objective B is situated in front of oneself. Â�Planning and displacement are perceptually linked (Johnson 1987:â•›28). The schema of Â�cutting accounts for an interruption along a path, be it spatial, spatio-temporal, logico-Â� temporal, or mental. The semantic generalization of the schema of cutting is important. Its traces appear in numerous and various notions: separation, cutting into elements, division into two halves, blockage, refusal, elimination, negation, end, stopping, decision, determination, measurement, categorization, categorical character, and interruption. The possibility of permutation on the physical level – the possible change of cutting plane, whether or not the gesture is performed symmetrically – is corollary to a generalizing extension on the semantic level. Dependent on perception, the semantic extension is based on physical and temporal metonymy supported by the act itself, linking the tool, the action, and its result. The schema of cutting thus serves a metaphorical transfer in respect of each Â�component: the active element, the act, and the results. This semantic extension originating in the operational schema is favoured by other perceptual associations: between length and displacement (distance covered), between space and time (spatio-temporal path of walking), and between path and process (continuum). To this we can add the analogical association of diverse physical progressions such as growth in height, walking forwards, and writing towards the right – a progression along any of these axes may be interrupted by a perpendicular plane cutting through it.
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
This semantic generalization includes physico-semantic nuances such as the cut into two halves, the rift between two partners, the total cut, the cut at the base, the interruption of a personal action, and the definitive interruption. These nuances linked to the cutting plane are supplied by supplementary analogical links constructed on the basis of other perceptual experiences. For example, the division into two halves is linked to the pregnant image of the symmetry of all living bodies. A further example, personal transit, linked to walking, is only conceivable along the sagittal axis and therefore can only be interrupted by a ‘board’ falling in front of oneself. Thus, from diverse perceptual experiences of cutting, an abstract schema emerges whose semantic exploitation is enriched by the supply of new syntheses born of other perceptual experiences. The series of ‘cutting’ gestures represents the operational schema and, through the latter, the two polarities of the semantic continuum going from the concrete to the abstract, going from the truncating of a real object to the task of analysis. Now that we have considered examples of reflexes, symptoms and everyday acts which have given rise to gestural signs, let us continue by exploring a range of image schemas which originate in our concrete everyday life experience and are expressed by gesture.
2.3â•… From percept to concept The analysis of co-speech gesture referring to the abstract gives rise to hypotheses about the transition from percept to concept. To illustrate this I shall now deal with the visual schema that corresponds to the perception of ‘everywhere’ and implies the gestural expression of totality. Then I shall discuss the proprioceptive and visual schema of ‘explanatory opening’ that explains the synchronous association of verbal explanation and opening of the hand.
2.3.1â•… From the visual field to the notion of totality This subject has already been treated earlier in this book, several times and from different angles. First, it was shown how to examine the analogical link of the gestural sign of totality by comparing the different gestural forms that express the notion (see Chapter 1, How to find the analogical link). Then, on the semantic level, various meanings derived from the notion of totality were treated (see Chapter 6, Figure 46) as well as semantic derivations of other notions, for example, perfection conceived as an achievement (see Chapter 6, Isolating the semantic features of a notion via its gesture variants). Lastly, it was shown that the gestural sign of totality activated in a polysemous gesture can contribute shades of meaning to each of the other notions expressed by adding the element of meaning ‘totality’ (see Chapter 7, The presence of several analogical links: plural motivation; Chapter 8, Nuance contributed by the polysemous gesture to each notion). Let us quickly review the ground we have covered.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
2.3.1.1â•… The analogical link of the sign of totality.â•… We know that the analogical link between a physical feature of a gesture and its contextual meaning is deduced from what it physically has in common with gesture variants that express the same notion. The physical element common to gestural signs of totality appears to be the transverse movement either of the head, or of one or both hands. The latter are generally flat and oriented in the horizontal plane facing downwards, i.e. Level Hand gestures, but they may have different configurations due to the semantic content of the gestures which precede it: all that matters is the new physical element within the sequence (see Chapter 1, Gestural sequencing, Examples 12, 13). By making comparisons on both the paradigmatic axis (different gestures expressing totality) and the syntagmatic axis (the gesture referring to totality within a gesture sequence) one can extract the relevant physical element that supports the analogical link. It is both the common element on the paradigmatic axis and the new element on the syntagmatic axis, namely the transverse movement. This is therefore the relevant physical feature that supports the analogical link between the notion of totality and the different gestures that express it. 2.3.1.2â•… Complete totality versus united totality.â•… What is the relation between this transverse movement and the notion of totality if it is not the reference to the horizon, ‘everywhere’, concretely represented by the eye gaze that sweeps across the horizon (in a single or repeated head movement) or the palm that sweeps from one side to the Â�other (in a movement that may or may not be symmetrical)? This transverse movement characterizes the overall character of an action, an event, or a quality that affects all the elements that one can see and count from left to right in the visual field. It represents the complete sequence of the elements, their maximum quantity, a complete linear view of x, and hence, it is a sign of a complete totality. In contrast, the image of the universe characterized by the celestial canopy evokes the idea of totality by curved-line gestures that represent either a sphere, or a sketch of it, a hemisphere, or its projection on to a plane, a horizontal circle, a global view of x, and hence, it is a sign of a united totality. (Calbris 1983:â•›964–967). 2.3.1.3â•… Semantic extension of the sign of totality.â•… By semantic derivation, the sign characterizing totality becomes the sign characterizing completeness, the Â�perfection of something. Like the character ‘total’, the character ‘complete’ is expressed by a Â�transverse movement of the Level Hand* (*un talent fou: *an incredible talent, Example 148), or by a transverse movement of the chin* (Et certains d’entre eux sont *de remarquables chirurgiens: And some of them are *remarkable surgeons, Â�Example 149). Another derivative, the superlative, is concretely envisaged as a maximal extension or the maximum level attained. For this reason it is represented by a transverse movement of the hand facing downwards* (Dans le romantisme *le plus complet: In
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
Romanticism *the most complete.14 – *de la plus haute fantaisie: *of the most far-fetched fantasy. Example 178). The character ‘total’ expressed by a transverse movement contributes its semantic nuance to the following notions: (1) perfection conceived as an achievement, and (2) the superlative conceived as the maximum level attained. Of course, the gesture only expresses one of the semantic variants inherent to each of these notions. Indeed, the gestural representation of perfection varies according to which of its constituent elements of meaning is emphasized: completion, faultlessness, or meticulousness (Examples 148–152). Similarly, the gestural expression of the superlative is very varied. We have seen one of the gesture variants of the superlative expressing the idea of maximum strength that is not simply represented by a fist but by a symmetrical** or repeated projection*r of the fist (*rde l’eau super salée: *rof extremely salty water, regarding an atoll. – Alors là, c’est un, **c’est un super commissaire: Now then, he’s a, **he’s a great superintendent (Example 241).
2.3.1.4â•… Complementary contribution of the sign of totality within a polysemous gesture.â•… The transverse movement of the Level Hand facing downwards* is a polysemous gesture whose twelve or so contextual meanings are based on five inherent analogical links (see Chapter 7, Figure 53. The plural motivation of a polysemous gesture). The 130 examples of this co-speech gesture found in the initial corpus (Calbris 1983:â•›462–470, 480–482) fall into five major groups, each of which corresponds to one of its five analogical links. The number of occurrences of each of the gesture’s contextual meanings found in the data is given in brackets: Link 1â•…44 examples constitute a network of four contextual meanings that can be explained by a transverse movement of the Level Hand sweeping the horizon that represents horizontal extension in two-dimensional space but may also be explained by the maximum level attained with reference to the ground in three-dimensional space: Large quantity (3), and the superlative (5); totality (26), and perfection (10). Link 2â•…22 examples are underpinned by the representation of a continuous direct line, hence without detour or interruption: Directness on the value-judgement level (2), direct temporal or logico-temporal link (6), direct consequence (6), and obvious consequence (8). Link 3â•…25 examples can be explained by tracing a transverse barrier at a certain distance from the ground to represent two notions: Negation (10); the end (10), and implied termination (5).
.â•… English word order: ‘In the most complete Romanticism.’
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Link 4â•…5 examples can be explained by the brusque movement of the edge of the hand that cuts space transversally: Cutting (5). Link 5â•…30 examples can be explained by the reference to a flat surface. A slow movement of the palm parallel to the ground represents a flat surface (10) that covers another one (5). It can represent flattening something (2), or maintaining something on the same level (13). It turns out that this polysemous gesture* sometimes becomes a polysign. By combining two analogical signs, it simultaneously has two meanings, one of which adds a shade of meaning to the other (see Chapter 8, Nuance contributed by the polysemous gesture to each notion). Thus the character of totality (Link 1) can affect most of the other meanings that this gesture may have: complete certainty (Links 1 and 2), absolute negation (Links 1 and 3), or total severance (Links 1 and 4). Here are examples illustrating each case: 296 (Links 1 and 2). A 25-year-old woman who is in temporary employment is Â�talking to a female friend about her colleague: Même si on lui proposait autre chose, elle resterait là, *je suis sûre (Even if she was offered something else, she would stay there, *I’m sure). 185 (Links 1 and 3). During the course of a conversation, an 83-year-old woman accompanies the following utterances with the same gesture: Non, *pas du tout, ça ne me tente pas du tout (No, *not at all, that doesn’t tempt me at all); *Plus un sou (*Not a penny); The absolute character of the negation appears both in the gesture and in the words with which it is almost exclusively associated: nothing, none, nobody, and never. 184 (Links 1 and 4). This meteorologist on television cuts France horizontally in two by drawing a dividing line between its upper (northern) and lower (southern) geographical regions: Une zone de mauvais temps *va scier la France en deux (An area of bad weather *is going to cut France in two). In another context it represents total elimination: Il y avait des anciens bâtiments: *ils ont tout rasé (There were some old buildings: *they’ve knocked everything down). And lastly, here is a synthetic example in which most of the potential analogical links of the gesture are activated: 297 A French actor trained in Japanese Noh theatre indicates the symbolic Â�arrangement and the physical characteristics of the stage: un carré qui a **toujours 5m 40 de côté (a square that has **always 5m 40cm on each side15). This Â�measurement presented as immutable (negation, Link 3) and
.╅
English word order: ‘a square, each side of which always measures 5â•›m 40â•›cm.’
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
permanent (�because of its stability, Link 5) throughout the centuries (totality, Link 1) �becomes a categorical principle (Link 2).
2.3.2â•… From opening to explaining Here we are concerned with the recurrent association between a verbal explanation and the opening of configurations with one or both hands. This physico-symbolic association could be relatively widespread because it has been observed in a French speaker (Calbris 2003d: 93–99) as well as in Neapolitan speakers (Kendon 2004a: 233–236, 241). By ‘opening’ I mean both distancing the hands from each other (1) and opening a closed hand (2). We shall consider (1) the separating of the palms facing each other, initially held close together in the Frame configuration (see Chapter 5, One configuration, but different movements: Sample 2), the separating of the palms initially joined along their inner edges in a gesture of offering in the Open Book configuration, the separating of the obliquely held palms in a symmetrical gesture of designating or demonstration; and (2) the opening of the fingers closed in the Pyramid configuration, the opening of the hand closed in a Fist, and the opening of the fingers pinched together in the Ring configuration.16 If one considers the numerous examples reported below, it seems as if each instance of the movement of separating or opening is a way of ‘giving’ the content of an abstract object so that it can be ‘seen’: a previously ‘defined, delimited’ object between the hands (Frame); an object that is ‘exposed’ by the open hands (Oblique Palms); a ‘particular’ or ‘condensed’ object ‘enclosed’ inside the hand (Pyramid); a ‘very precise’ object, pinched between the thumbnail and the index fingernail (Ring). The ‘giving in order to be seen’ (Fr. ‘donner à voir’) gesture accompanies the verbal explanation of the object that has initially been specified by the hand shape. 2.3.2.1â•… Opening the Frame.â•… Let us first of all consider the Frame configuration that delimits a space occupied by any kind of abstract object thus mentally converted into a thing. The subsequent gesture of opening the Frame is a way of widening the gap between the boundaries of the symbolic container, formed by the palms facing each other, in order to disclose its content: 298 [Frame] Indépendamment de ces questions [opens] de revenus (Figure 100.1). – À condition que ça fasse [Frame] l’objet [opens] de discussions contractuelles. – [Frame] Avec des occupations [opens] c’est vrai relativement réduites. – Il y a des problèmes qu’elle pose, [Frame] leurs liens entre l’assurance-chômage, [opens] le système d’indemnisation du chômage
.╅
See Appendix A for illustrations of the configurations referred to.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
[Frame] euh et les minima sociaux, [opens] c’est-à-dire les mesures de solidarité en quelque sorte [Frame] Independently of these questions [opens] of income. – On condition that this forms [Frame] the object [opens] of contractual discussions. – [Frame] With occupations [opens] that’s true relatively reduced.17 – There are problems that it raises, [Frame] their links between unemployment insurance, [opens] the system of indemnity of unemployment18 [Frame] er and the minimum social benefits, [opens] that is to say the measures of solidarity in a way The Frame isolates the abstract object, whether it is “unemployment insurance” or “minimum social benefits”. Then the palms delimiting the abstract object separate in order to show and offer it to the interlocutor. The gesture that ‘gives in order to be seen’ represents the mental operation of explaining. The physical opening and the explanation are synchronous. The spoken utterance describes what the gesture reveals. On condition that it is targeted by the eye gaze or symbolically transposed in the gap between the hands held at head level, the space delimited by the Frame configuration and envisaged in the distance will represent the delimited object towards which one is advancing: 299 [Frame, at head level] Si on essaie de trouver quand même [opens] la raison principale. – Mais c’est d’élire, [Frame] c’est d’élire [opens] une nouvelle équipe. – [Frame, gazed at] on pouvait commencer [opens] un certain nombre de réformes. – Il était prévu un rendez-vous dix ans après [Frame, gazed at] pour poser [opens] la question de l’autodétermination [Frame, at head level] If one tries to find nevertheless [opens] the main reason. – But it’s to elect, [Frame] it’s to elect [opens] a new team. – [Frame, gazed at] one could begin [opens] a certain number of reforms. – It was planned to have a meeting ten years later [Frame, gazed at] in order to raise [opens] the question of self-determination Each time, the explanation of the object or objective is accompanied by a movement of opening. The gesture sequence consists in defining the object ‘that’, then in disclosing it as if in answer to the question ‘what is it?’ (see Table 34):
.╅
English word order: ‘With relatively reduced occupations, that’s true.’
.╅
Unemployment benefit.
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
Table 34.╇ Explanation of an object or objective by opening the Frame �configuration Frame configuration
opened
Abstract object, delimited ces questions these questions l’objet the object des occupations occupations l’assurance chômage: unemployment insurance: minima sociaux: minimum social benefits:
explained de revenus of income de discussions contractuelles of contractual discussions c’est vrai relativement réduites that’s true relatively reduced le système d’indemnisation du chômage the system of indemnity of unemployment c’est-à-dire les mesures de solidarité that is to say the measures of solidarity
Objective, defined trouver to find élire to elect commencer to begin poser to raise
explained la raison principale the main reason une nouvelle équipe a new team un certain nombre de réformes a certain number of reforms la question de l’autodétermination the question of self-determination
2.3.2.2â•… Opening Oblique Palms.â•… The principle holds regardless of what is envisaged, presented or offered by the Oblique Palms, as shown in the examples below in which the gesture of separating the palms is synchronized with the explanation, “I mean to say”: 300 Certes il a une [Oblique Palms] démarche sécuritaire [move apart] je veux dire menée par les forces de sécurité Of course, he has a [Oblique Palms] security approach [move apart] I mean to say led by the security forces It may be a meeting to discuss something: 301 Les nouveaux responsables du patronat français envisageraient au fond de [Oblique Palms] revenir [move apart] discuter The new heads of the French corporations were basically envisaging [Oblique Palms] returning [move apart] to discuss It may be an offer made by joining the palms along their inner edges (Open Book configuration):
 Elements of meaning in gesture
302 [Open Book] Par exemple [opens more] en assouplissant pour tous ceux qui craignent pour leur vie en Algérie, [palms offering] la politique des visas [Open Book] For example [opens more] by relaxing for all those who fear for their lives in Algeria, [palms offering] the policy on visas19 The preceding example is particularly interesting. The offer is signified by the gesture of the open palms united along their inner edges. The contents of of the offer is signified by opening the configuration: a relaxation of the policy on visas.
Ces questions These questions
de revenus of income
1. Opening the Frame configuration
La valeur The value
de la promotion sociale of social advancement
2. Opening the Pyramid Figure 100.1–2.╇ Opening a hand configuration to explain something (Calbris 2003d: 94, 96)
.â•… English word order: ‘For example by relaxing the policy on visas for all those who fear for their lives in Algeria.’
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
2.3.2.3â•… Opening the Pyramid.â•… Let us now consider what opening of the Pyramid configuration20 may signify. Here are three of the six French examples encountered in the LJ corpus. In the first, the hand closed in the Pyramid configuration reduces the space it encloses and thus represents the summary, the essence, the quintessence of the content that opening the fingers then discloses: 303 [Pyramid] et qui sont attachés profondément à une valeur essentielle parmi bien d’autres [Pyramid] qui est la valeur [opens] de la promotion sociale. [Pyramid] and that are profoundly attached to one essential value among many others [Pyramid] which is the value [opens] of social advancement (Figure 100.2). In the second example, the condensed shape of the hand represents the element in relation to the whole and the particular character of this element (certain situations of social unrest), then shown-explained by opening the fingers*, (the situations of “urban crisis”): 304 Même si des situations de malaise social, même si [both hands in the Pyramid configuration] des situations [open] de crise urbaine Even if situations of social unrest, even if [both hands in the Pyramid configuration] situations [open] of urban crisis The following gesture could be doubly motivated. The Pyramid represents both precision signified by the fingertips, “this Iraq”, and its secret content that opening the fingers reveals and liberates, “a potential for weapons”: 305 [Pyramid] En même temps, cet Irak [opens] gardait un potentiel d’armes de destruction massive, nucléaires, balistiques, [Pyramid] At the same time, this Iraq [opens] was maintaining a potential for weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, ballistic [weapons], Thus, the gesture sequence of first closing the hand in the Pyramid configuration and then opening it is disambiguated by the verbal context. It represents in the first example: ‘the essential consists in that’; in the second: ‘the particular element, there it is’; in the third: ‘that is what was hidden’. Kendon (2004a) discusses equivalent examples collected in Naples which I Â�summarize below (see Table 35, Kendon 2004a: 234–237, 242). He notes that “the Â�grappolo-to-open is associated with the comment, the part of the discourse that Â�specifies the nominated topic or that completes it in some way” (Kendon 2004a: 234).
.â•… The Pyramid configuration is the same hand shape that Kendon refers to as the ‘Finger Bunch’ (1995) and ‘Grappolo’ (2004a). He regards it as a kind of precision grip gesture.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Table 35.╇ Explanation of the content by opening the Pyramid (Finger Bunch, Grappolo) Pyramid configuration
opened
Essential content
explained
La valeur The value Des situations Situations Cet Irak gardait This Iraq was maintaining
de la promotion sociale of social advancement de crise urbaine of urban crisis un potentiel d’armes de destruction a potential for weapons of mass destruction
Il centro storico. Questa è The historic center. This is Il presepe è The presepe is (Papaveri) I fiori (Poppies) flowers L’↜essenza The essence (Una piscina) di acqua (It’s a pool) of water
Napoli vera (Kendon 2004a, Example 73) true Naples l’essere Napoletano (Example 74) the Neapolitan being rossi (Example 75) red di Natale (Example 77) of Christmas potabile (Example 82) drinking
2.3.2.4â•… Opening the Ring.â•… In the LJ corpus, there are 15 occurrences of opening ‘finger-nail pincers’ in the form of a Ring. Here are some examples showing that these pincers always evoke the notion of precision: 306 [Ring] On dit: [opens] les entreprises, alors tout le monde se dit /…/. – [Ring accentuates each word] il est ex expressément précisé que les États membres vont lutter contre la concurrence déloyale en matière [opens] fiscale ou [Ring] d’ailleurs en matière [opens] sociale. – De façon à ce [two Rings] qu’elles Â�pénalisent moins [open] le travail. [Ring] One says: [opens] the companies, then everyone says to themselves /…/. – [Ring accentuates each word] it is ex expressly specified that the Member States are going to fight unfair competition in affairs [opens] fiscal or [Ring] moreover in affairs [opens] social.21 – In such a way [two Rings] that they penalize less [open] work.22 and may evens evoke the notion of extreme precision or rigour, including that concerning morality: Ensuite, je décide [two Rings] de ne [open] masquer aucune réalité Then, I decide [two Rings] not [open] to conceal any reality
.â•… English word order: ‘it is ex expressly specified that the Member States are going to fight unfair competition in fiscal affairs or moreover in social affairs.’ .â•…
Meaning: ‘in such a way that they penalize work to a lesser extent.’
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
A sign of precision, the finger-nail pincers open to present the object being specified. The opening of the pincers and the verbal explanation are synchronous. The same applies to the examples reported by Kendon (2004a). The pincers open to present the denomination of a very particular trade and a specified quantity of water (see Table 36). Table 36.╇ Explanation of precision by opening the Ring Ring
opened (*)
Rigour, Precision
given:
mot prononcé: word pronounced: lutte en matière: fight in matters: lutte en matière : fight in matters: pénalisation moindre: less penalization: refus: refusal:
les entreprises the businesses fiscale of a fiscal nature sociale of a social nature du travail of work de masquer la moindre chose to conceal the least little thing
si chiamava (He was called Poteva contenere quindici mila It could hold fifteen thousand
il pozzaro the ‘pozzaro’ (Kendon 2004a, Example 81) metri cubi di acqua potabile cubic metres of drinking water (Example 82)
2.3.2.5â•… Opening the Fist.â•… Here I only report on half the examples of opening the Fist found in the corpora. The process of clarification by opening a container to see what is inside is related to the various notions expressed by the hand closed in a fist that, as a symbol of strength, can represent effort (307) just as well as psychological strength, the will (308), the strength of a value, or the importance of something (309): 307 C’est, [Two Fists] à partir du moment [moved forwards] où il y a une aide [open] de l’État. – [Fist] Donc [opens] tout ça a été fait en commun It’s, [Two Fists] from the moment [moved forwards] when there is aid [open] from the State. – [Fist] Therefore [opens] all that has been done communally 308 [Fist] Je voulais [opens] aussi avancer. – Une mesure [Fist] d’incitation [opens] au travail, forte, et je crois novatrice. [Fist] I wanted [opens] also to advance.23 – A measure [Fist] of incentive [opens] to work, strong, and I believe innovative.
.╅
English word order: ‘I also wanted to advance.’
 Elements of meaning in gesture
309 J’essaye de terminer la réponse, [Fist] elle est importante, elle dit [opens] quelque chose de la façon dont je veux me situer I’m trying to finish the reply, [Fist] it is important, it says [opens] something in a way that I want to position myself Through the diversity of manual configurations that he opens, the French speaker reveals in particular the schema of explanatory opening, born of the convergence of diverse perceptual, proprioceptive, visual, and motor experiences. In everyday life, opening a container allows us to disclose its content. All movements of opening are associated with disclosing something. Even opening the eyelids allows us to ‘dis-close’ and ‘dis-cover’ the environment, and playing with opening the mother’s mouth is for a very young child a way of finding out what the maternal body contains. Elsewhere, there is a multitude of hidden contents to be discovered by pushing, lifting up, opening a door, a lid, or a valve. Later, we continue to discover abstract objects, always by opening something: an envelope or a book. Every movement of opening doors, curtains, shutters, or pushing tree branches aside, or even one’s eyelids is associated with the disclosure and hence discovery of what was formerly unknown or hidden. What is more, the bursting open of a bud, its self-opening, is the manifestation of a process of maturity, of an ongoing development. In the same way, opening a hand shows what it contains. The gesture answers the question: what’s that? It consists in opening or making a closed hand configuration ‘hatch’ or ‘blossom’ (opening the Fist, the ‘manual purse’ called the Pyramid, or the ‘finger-nail pincers’ called the Ring) or, furthermore, in separating two body parts that make up a symmetrical hand configuration like the Frame. The opening signifies the resulting discovery, and the recurrence of the phenomenon in everyday life reinforces the contiguity relation thus established. The operations of physical opening and Â�intellectual discovery being contiguous, the former evokes its corollary. The principle of explanatory opening is found in oral expression, another human activity. There too, a physical opening announces an intellectual discovery: the manual opening signifies the discovery of the verbal explanation. The opening of hand configurations is a nice example of the cognitive processes – metaphor, metonymy, and blends – at work in accessing an abstract world and its symbolic representation (Janda 2000). The comparison of such co-speech gestures highlights a curious phenomenon: a recurrent association between a type of hand configuration and a type of abstract object, on the one hand, followed by another recurrent association between opening (a hand configuration) and the synchronous verbal explanation (of the abstract object), on the other. The synchronous association of the opening movement and the explanation of the abstract object draws one’s attention to the possibility of an analogical link between an opening movement and an intellectual kind of development.
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
If, as has been argued up to now, gesture often expresses a perceptual schema, opening something (signified gesturally) would be perceptually associated with discovering something (signified verbally): opening in order to discover. The gestural sign reproduces this essentially metonymic, progressively abstract, perceptual schema of our recurrent perceptual experiences indicated above. Opening a container allows us to discover its content (everyday physical experience); opening a manual container allows us to discover the content hidden in the hand (physical bodily experience); opening the hand representing a container represents the disclosure of its content (gestural mime); opening a hand configuration representing an abstract object Â�represents the disclosure of the abstract object’s content (gestural representation); opening a Â�specific hand configuration representing a specific abstract object represents the disclosure of the content of the object in question (nuanced gestural representation). Moreover, in everyday life, the way of grasping and holding an object depends on its size. The type of object is indirectly defined by how one grasps it – its mode of prehension. The same applies to an abstract object conceived in the image of a concrete object. The abstract object is indirectly defined by its mode of prehension qualified by the hand configuration. In summary, hand configurations represent certain types of abstract object: the Frame represents a defined object or objective; Oblique Palms represent an offered object; the Pyramid represents a specific or condensed object; the Ring represents a precise element; the Fist represents effort or the will to do something. Opening each one of these configurations is synchronized with a verbal explanation of the object in question as if it is conceived as a gift that one describes to someone while opening it. All opening movements are associated with the discovery of an interior. The movement of opening the hand reproduces the experiential schema of discovery. Depending on the circumstances, this is the intellectual discovery of an abstract Â�content explained by the spoken utterance. The gesture reproduces the cognitive process at work during the utterance process. Of course, within the framework of a syntagma, one cannot expect to generalize this utterance process of phono-gesturally presenting an object and then phono-Â�gesturally qualifying it. On the other hand, one can suppose that this process is maintained on the more general informative level of communicating messages (topic-comment). We have seen that, generally, a gesture that accompanies a verbal reference to a concrete action or object does not represent the concrete action or object but conveys complementary information about the action or object. The gesture represents, for example, a quality of the object or the result of the action stated verbally, or it can concretely represent a notion extracted from the action. It gives the idea of the action by stylizing the primordial act (Example 280). The gesture formulates the idea extracted from the concrete act and, inversely, concretizes a figurative locution by forming the
 Elements of meaning in gesture
image that the word contains virtually (Example 281). It is the expression of an intermediary image schema between the concrete and the abstract (Figure 89). Insofar it expresses an idea and does not illustrate a word, a gesture allows us to make the distinction between what is said and what is thought (Example 285), and it is maintained for the entire duration of the idea’s presence in the mind (Example 286). In fact, the gesture expresses the metaphoric image of the idea to be put in words: it maintains the visible sketch of the idea in the speaker’s mind and thus helps him to verbalize his idea and helps his interlocutor to guess what will be said. Sometimes the speaker expresses different aspects of his thought in one single bireferential gesture which his interlocutor readily integrates thanks to the verbal context that disambiguates the gestural signs compacted in one single gesture (Example 287). In addition to the individual notions conveyed by the metaphorical images proposed by his gestures, the speaker can give a visual idea of the complete structure of an argumentation by spatially transposing its underlying temporal and logical relations. Gesture expresses not only the verbal images shared by a linguistic-cultural group but also an individual’s own personal mental images (Examples 283, 284). Gestural expression is not always conscious and it is capable of communicating an idea in a subliminal way (Example 288). Furthermore, a statistical and qualitative analysis of a speaker’s most recurrent gestures studied in context – for instance, the frequent use of the Frame configuration or the differentiated use of the right hand and the left hand (Examples 290–292, Figure 94) – allows one to reveal the speaker’s perspectives that are both very coherent and non-conscious. The beginning of this chapter dealt with how the symbolic is extracted from the physical. We saw that psychosomatic reactions linking the physical to the psychological in a contiguous way explain the transition to gestures which concretely express psychological attitudes. One can react physically to abstract objects and to ideas. These abstractions are capable of provoking reactions of self-protective refusal, Â�avoidance, disgust, or surprise which become physically apparent in movements of self-Â�protection, evasion, rejection, and reflexes of recoiling. In the second step towards the abstract, the body no longer reacts physically to a physical or intellectual stimulus, it mimes an action. The transition from the gestural representation of the act to the notion derived from the act was demonstrated in detail using the themes of cutting, separation, and stopping (Figures 96–99). The schema of cutting is a visual and proprioceptive percept. Dependent on perception, its semantic extension is based on physical and temporal metonymy supported by the act itself, linking the tool, the action, and its result (Chapter 1, Experience of the Â�physical world). This semantic generalization includes physico-semantic nuances: linked to the plane in which the cut is executed, these nuances are supplied by supplementary Â�analogical links constructed on the foundation of other perceptual experiences (Figure 100). In short, gesture represents the operational schema and, through
Chapter 10.╇ Gesture, thought and speech 
the latter, the two polarities of the semantic continuum: from the concrete to the abstract, from the truncating of a real object to the task of analysis, i.e. from iconic to metaphoric gesture. Lastly, the analysis of a series of gestural signs revealed the existence of a rich, non-conscious perceptual schema constructed on the basis of different and converging perceptual experiences. We already knew that different hand shapes can represent different abstract objects, each configuration representing a type of object: the Frame, a defined object; Oblique Palms, an offered object; the Pyramid, a specific object; the Fist, an important or wanted object; the Ring, a very precise object. Here, we established that the verbal clarification of each different abstract object represented by a particular configuration is simultaneously and systematically accompanied by a movement of opening the configuration. The recurrent link between opening and explaining is particularly striking. It is as if the movement of opening the hands represents the abstract action of revealing the content of the abstract object. The gesture expresses a perceptual schema which, progressively constructed on the basis of our sensori-motor experience, systematically connects physical opening to intellectual discovery.
Conclusion We all use our bodies both to act and to communicate with others in any form of interaction, whether silent or oral. For instance, one can manufacture an object or represent it by reproducing the action without the object. The human capacity of miming allows a transition from acting upon matter in the physical world to symbolic acting in the mental world shared by communication partners. Viewed as a sign derived from action, gesture acts as a particular type of sign – at the same time spontaneous, barely conscious, and vague – within the context of oral communication. The analysis of the gestural sign poses numerous problems because it interacts with other types of sign, linguistic or otherwise, within the context of discourse. This book has brought together the results of my attempt to pin down the specific nature of the gestural sign and how it functions in oral communication. As the fruits of many years of empirical research, these results offer insights into human cognition as a corollary. I shall now summarize and discuss the material covered, bringing out the main points in the order in which they have been treated. The domain of complexity.â•… Studying the co-speech gestural sign is like trying to get hold of a lively silvery fish in a fluid and multifarious substance whose elements interfere with one another. It is the domain of complexity in which our object of study fleetingly takes on its forms and functions. By definition, oral communication may be acoustic in nature but, in fact, it relies on information being conveyed through several channels, one of which is the kinesic channel employed by gesture. The kinesic channel is itself multifarious since the forms of expression which use this modality are varied; the compound French term posturo-mimo-gestualité thus covers simultaneous movements in different parts of the body. Gesture is multifunctional. Within the context of oral communication, it exercises a referential function, among others. In its referential function, the same gesture can have several alternative meanings, each dependent on the particular context of use (polysemous gesture), or more than one meaning at the same time (polysign gesture). In other words, we are dealing with a multitude of channels employed by oral communication, a multitude of kinesic data transmitted via the kinesic channel, a multitude of functions exercised by gesture and, within its referential function, a multitude of possible meanings for one and the same gesture. Task distribution in oral communication.â•… How is the information which people engaged in conversation transmit distributed across the diverse channels at their disposal, and what are the diverse functions served by the sensory modalities they
 Elements of meaning in gesture
utilize? The gesturer-speaker produces static and dynamic visual information, on the one hand, and verbal and vocal acoustic information, on the other. He utilizes two sensory modalities but three communication channels. Communication is achieved via the uttered text (verbal channel), the rhythmic movement of the voice (vocal channel) and the body (kinesic channel). Thus ‘non-textual’ communication, i.e. all aspects of an utterance that cannot be written down and referred to here as nonverbal communication, is both vocal and kinesic. Prosodic and melodic vocal emissions associate with gesture in a dynamic vocal-kinesic partnership that segments speech into rhythmic groups. These organize the transmitted information in a semantic hierarchy. Over and above this demarcative function, vocal-kinesic dynamicity serves an interactive or phatic function (Jakobson 1960) by regulating the contact between interlocutors, and it serves an expressive function as well. The vocal-kinesic duo is limited to these three functions. As in sign language, gesture on its own can have a referential function. When it is associated with speech, its referential function operates in relation to what is said. Hence, gestural signs are produced in tandem with verbal signs by a new duo, this time verbal-kinesic. This is an interactive association because the verbal and the gestural information are not merely juxtaposed; they influence each other. Thus, the gesture-voice-word trio can be decomposed and re-associated into functionally different duos w hose tasks differ. In short, the verbal-kinesic duo serves the referential function, whereas the vocal-kinesic duo serves both the demarcative function by playing a role in the segmentation of the speech stream, and the expressive function by conveying affective information. But although one admits that gesture effectively intervenes in face-to-face interaction, one is usually less willing to admit that it also forms part of utterance production, that it is a co-producer of speaking. I argue for this position. Bodily knowledge.â•… Face-to-face oral communication is multichannel; it not only utilizes several sensory modalities, essentially hearing and sight, but also proprioception. Not only do we perceive an interlocutor’s vocal emissions and gestures as utterances that he is producing but also as utterances that we can produce ourselves. We feel the vocal, bodily, and kinesic manifestations of others as being partially our own. The discovery of mirror neurons may provide us with a physiological basis for explaining the interaction between vision and action, between vision and proprioception. This would confirm the concepts of ‘intercorporeity’ (Fr. intercorporalité) and the ‘knowing-body’ (Fr. corps connaissant) proposed by Merleau-Ponty (1945) to account for the phenomena of imitation, mimesis, and empathy. This shared experience allows us to recognize the role assigned to gesture and what it signifies. Systematic analysis reveals that the inherent meaning conveyed by gesture is derived from everyday activity. It shows that gesture reproduces, in a stylized way, elements of our perceptual-motor experience from which our conception of the abstract
Conclusion 
originates. Primary and ambiguous, this symbolic expression is disambiguated by contextual data which specify its precise meaning. The context selects one of the gesture’s potential meanings which are revealed by the systematic analysis of examples of its use, as demonstrated in the present work. Against preconceptions.â•… This book runs counter to certain preconceptions. As co-speech gesture is generally produced and perceived in a non-conscious way by interacting communication partners, one sometimes tends to attribute the referential function uniquely to the text that is uttered. In other words, the exercise of the referential function would suppose a conscious and willed intention on the part of the speaker. According to this preconception, a referential gesture would be intentionally produced for instructive reasons as a simple illustrative duplicate of what is spoken. However, we have seen that this is not the case. Another preconception encountered in the early days of gesture studies was that gesture, essentially physical, can only refer to the concrete. It is certainly able to reproduce actions, draw the shapes of objects or depict spatial relations. However, the assumption that gesture can only refer to the material world, while only verbalization can refer to abstract objects, has proved to be wrong. As has been shown abundantly in this book, gesture may also refer to the abstract and express perceptual proto-concepts metaphorically. Specific properties of the gestural sign.â•… My approach to co-speech gesture differs from that of many other researchers in that my interest essentially lies in clarifying what is specific to co-speech gesture and its mode of symbolic functioning. At the same time, the fact that gesture serves as a visual-proprioceptive sign within the context of oral communication, and as a means of acting or reacting in everyday life, are not overlooked. Indeed, these aspects of gesture are integral to my approach. Contrary to the verbal sign – which is extrinsic, discontinuous, and invariable – the nonverbal sign, whether vocal or gestural, is intrinsic, continuous, and probabilistic. That is to say, the verbal sign is arbitrary, analytic, and explicit, whereas the nonverbal sign is motivated, synthetic, and implicit. Since it is by nature different from the verbal sign, the gestural sign also follows different constraints because of the sensory modality in which it operates. The logical presentation of visual information implies that the setting is to be presented before the characters. Likewise, one presents the relations involved before presenting the elements that are related, and the elements involved can only be described once they have been identified: element designation precedes its qualification. Moreover, the constraints governing the presentation of verbal and gestural information differ: the essentially sequential presentation of textual and acoustic data contrasts with the added possibilities of simultaneous and cumulative presentation of visual data produced by different parts of the body. Not only can these simultaneous kinesic manifestations have several functions, but one and the same gesture may also perform several functions (multifunctionality) and evoke different notions (multireferentiality).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
The difficulty is to admit that the meaning of an oral message results from interactions between two symbolic systems of different natures, the kinesic and the verbal. To discover how and what a gesture signifies, first of all, one has to establish how the kinesic system functions. In order to do so, one takes a top-down approach by analysing gesture data, initially from a purely physical perspective, in order to extract the meaning of a given gesture in different contexts of use. Because the co-speech gestural referent is a hybrid entity due to its interaction with what is said, one has to determine the specific gestural referent, i.e. what a gesture signifies on its own. One has to establish the semantic contribution of the gesture as a gestural sign by researching its motivation in given contexts and the physical reason for this motivation. This approach allows one to understand how the meaning of a co-speech gesture is instantiated: it results from information inherent to the gesture interacting with the information conveyed by its verbal context. Now taking a bottom-up approach, this means that when a gesture is associated with speech, gestural information (potentially symbolic physical elements) interacts with essentially verbal contextual information, which specifies the co-speech gestural information (gestural sign), which in turn interacts with the verbal information (verbal sign) and determines the message that results from the two signs interacting. Gesture in fact appears to be a source of potential meanings, and it only acquires its particular meaning in context. Its semantic function operates as if the verbal information comes to activate and select one of the gesture’s potential meanings stemming from one or another of its physico-symbolic features. Thus one interprets the co-speech gestural referent according to the utterance: it is the co-speech gestural referent that interacts with the verbal referent, anticipates it, specifies it, and completes it. When one seeks to pin down the contextual meaning of the gesture, the multifarious aspects of the context – situational, verbal, prosodic, and kinesic – are obviously important. On the kinesic level, one has to take into account not just the other bodily movements performed simultaneously, but also the sequencing of the gestures performed as the utterance is being produced. The comparison of gestures in their contexts of use enables one to differentiate between the semantic relevance of a gestural element and its physical realization due to the ease of articulating motor action. The method of analysis adopted here enables one to discover the diverse spectrum of analogical links that may be established between physical and semantic aspects of gestures, and then how these links may occur singly or in combination within one gesture. It throws light upon the complex interplay of the symbolic relations between gestures and notions on particular occasions of use. Special features of the methodology.â•… One of this book’s special features is its attempt to reconcile systems thinking with a concern for detail. The difficulty lies in reconciling the macro and the micro viewpoints on the object of study, that is to say, in continually
Conclusion 
shifting back and forth between a high-level view of the whole system of signs and a fine-grained analysis of each sign. The essential feature of the approach is an analysis of the network of multiple and reciprocal relations between gestures and their meanings, i.e. ideas or concepts generally referred to here as ‘notions’. As we have seen, a given gesture may express several different notions (polysemy), and inversely, a given notion may be expressed gesturally in several different ways (gesture variants). Furthermore, both notions and gestures can themeselves have an internal complexity: one gesture is composed of several physical components which may convey meaning either singly or in combination with each other. So, one gesture can have different relevant physical features which analogically convey meaning. Likewise, a given notion may have different semantic features which are expressed by different gestures. In my method of analysis I seek to establish and verify the different ways in which relevant physical features of gestures and semantic features of notions can be linked to one another. It is by ascertaining the scope of these recurrent links in one’s data that one gains a systems-level perspective on the semantic values of the gestural signs which convey meaning during utterance production. Researching the analogical link from the micro viewpoint.â•… Verifying the motivation of referential co-speech gestures by researching the analogical links that establish gestural signs requires a systematic approach: (1) on the physical level, coding the physical components of the gestures, (2) compiling lists of co-speech gestures sorted by gestural component and with the transcript of the text they accompany, and (3) on the semantic level, clarifying each gesture’s contextual meaning. One can then compare the data and correlate elements on the two levels, the common element on the physical level (feature) being presumed to represent the common element on the semantic level (meaning). The analogical link found between a common physical feature and a common meaning with which it recurs establishes the gestural sign that is present in different co-speech gestures with this physical feature in common. Researching the analogical link is easier if one has already identified this common meaning: one notion expressed by different gestures. By comparing a notion’s gesture variants one can extract the common physical feature linked to the meaning. This allows one to find the analogical link underlying the gestural sign that is common to the different gesture variants. The principle is simple and can be applied to researching the analogical links in all the co-speech gestures in one’s corpus. This leads to a system-level understanding of gestural expression. Having treated the case of single motivation (semantic derivation based on one analogical link), it is sufficient to envisage the potential case of plural motivation (several analogical links within one gesture) in order to explain a gesture’s polysemy. One therefore reapplies the same analytic principle: since the comparison of gesture variants enables one to extract the analogical link between their common physical feature and
 Elements of meaning in gesture
the notion they express, the comparison of the gesture variants of each of the notions expressed by a given polysemous gesture enables one to reveal all the different analogical links it potentially offers. A given context activates one of these alternative links, thus establishing a gestural sign that conveys one of its meanings. In this case, the polysemous gesture would have plural motivation. Whether or not the analysis pursued with regard to the gestural system is conducted by taking a physical starting point (polysemous gesture) or a notional one (gesture variants of a notion), the aim always remains the same: to examine the common element on both the physical and the semantic levels in order to extract the natural link uniting them, and therefore the gestural sign(s) contained within the gesture. One way of verifying the value of a suspected analogical link is to verify if a modulation of the sign on the physical level is found to have an equivalent, proportional modulation echoed on the semantic level. If so, it validates the link. For example, the size of a physically opposed surface (of a digit or hand(s), possibly extended by a transverse movement) is found to be proportional to the degree of opposition or self-protection that is symbolized. Finding such isomorphism between gestural signs that share a core meaning and present graded expressions of it would confirm that the link exists. Discovery of the analogical links.â•… It has been stated that one has to look for what could physically, analogously represent the contextual meaning of a gesture. One only relates what is found to be strictly common to the co-speech gestures in the corpus on both the physical and semantic levels. One can take either the physical point of departure by compiling lists of co-speech gestures sorted by gestural component, or the semantic point of departure by comparing gesture variants of the same notion. Starting with what is common on the semantic level is in fact the simpler way: it is sufficient to compare gesture variants in order to extract their common physical feature representing the notion in question and, therefore, their common analogical link. Here a distinction is made between semantic variants which express slight semantic variations of the same notion and stylistic variants which express the same notion with varying degrees of strength. Gesture variants performed with different body parts, such as the same movement performed by the hand and/or head, produce stylistic variants, whereas manual gesture variants performed with different hand configurations produce semantic variants. Insofar as semantic variants each express a particular shade of meaning, they each present a second physical feature which can represent a second complementary meaning. This second analogical link is to be verified in the same way: by comparing the gesture variants of the complementary notion. Analysis thus reveals that such gesture variants present two analogical links, one which is common to them all, and one which is not. In each case, the two analogical links underlie two gestural signs, and these interact to produce a shade of meaning that differentiates
Conclusion 
one gesture variant from the others. The semantic-pragmatic choice of a gesture variant is spontaneously performed because it has the advantage of offering the symbolic combinatorial arrangement which fits the particular context in question. The proposed systematic analysis enables one to discover several possible analogical links within a given co-speech gesture. The discovery of this or that analogical link, which differs according to the situation, explains the plural motivation of the polysemous gesture. The discovery of this and that analogical link which simultaneously refer to two notions explains the case of the polysign gesture. Note that the polysign gesture presents two or more ‘juxtaposed’ gestural signs but a semantic gesture variant, as described above, presents two ‘interacting’ gestural signs. Furthermore, a polysemous gesture that can express either this or that notion may be able to express them simultaneously; the context can trigger the activation of this and that analogical link among those potentially available. Depending on the context, it may behave like a polysign and simultaneously express two notions or, more often, it behaves like a semantic variant and expresses one notion with a particular shade of meaning contributed by one of the two interacting signs. Lastly, let us recall that, like the verbal context, the kinesic context also allows one to disambiguate the meaning of a gesture by selecting which analogical link is activated when there are several possibilities. Gaze direction, for example, allows one to determine if rubbing the thumb against the index and middle fingers represents an object that is rubbed and held between the fingers to refer to money, or something to be defined by the rubbing action, while the gesturer-speaker is searching (gazing into space) for a definition or an appropriate word. Towards the macro viewpoint of the system of analogical links.â•… Analogical links have to be considered as symbolic elements of gestural representation. The physical basis of the link is very variable. It can manifest itself in a kinesic ensemble just as well as it can in a kinesic unit or subunit. There is no correlation between the number of analogical links and the number of kinesic entities. One encounters one link common to several units as well as several links in one kinesic unit. Symbolic representation occurs in very varied ways because one single link may be expressed in a facial-gestural ensemble and, inversely, two links can be expressed within one single gestural component! The analogical links established in a context of use rely on the diverse physical components of the gesture. The variety of the combinations of analogical links determines that of the symbolic representations produced. Only through the systematic comparison of the physical and the semantic data provided by co-speech gestures sorted by gestural component is one able to reveal and to explain the complexity, the diversity of physical symbolism, whose principles do not require exclusive choices to be made (this or that analogical link) but productively allow inclusive choices (this and that analogical link).
 Elements of meaning in gesture
The progressive discovery of analogical links in one’s gesture data allows one to obtain a macro perspective of the system and to gain an understanding of how it operates. Thus, whether one is concerned with gestural expressions of attitudes or notions, one can discover their origin. For example, it has been shown how a whole range of gestural expression is derived from diverse reflexes of refusal (see Chapter 8, The semantics of physical refusal). Based on the symbolic manifestations of a gesture in diverse utterance contexts, the task of analysis consists in progressively going back via the analogical links to the physically symbolic source of the gesture which interplays with the verbal meaning: the enacted meaning shows the precise meaning of the word. (see Chapter 8, The case of negation). Benefits of the methodology.â•… We know that perception is shaped by knowledge; we tend to see only what we already know or recognize. Known facts in one domain of inquiry into language are readily recognized and applied to another. Hence one may recognize that polysemy and semantic variation exist not only in verbal but also in gestural expression. However, traditional linguistic inquiry does not lead one to envisage gesture’s capacity to express several meanings at once in a polysign. Likewise, in order to explain polysemy, the pragmatic approach focused on a change of context is inclined to privilege semantic derivation based on a single analogical link. It does not lead one to envisage a potential change of analogical link, the activation of a different link within the gesture in order to explain its new contextual meaning. My methodological approach furthers the study of the analogical link by comparing the gesture variants of a notion. This offers key benefits: it explains a gesture’s potential to change analogical links in order to evoke different notions according to the context (polysemous gesture) or to cumulate two analogical links in order to evoke two notions at the same time (polysign gesture). The context comes to activate this and/or that analogical link which the gesture can offer; it does not just develop a semantic derivation on the basis of an analogical link. In short, a gesture appears to be a composite unit composed of physical elements which are not only relevant but also potential conveyors of meaning that the context comes to activate in a selective manner. The relation between gesture and speech.â•… Gesture and speech can assume equivalent functions. From this arises the possibility of substitution or alternation in the modalities employed. For example, gesture can have an expressive function while speech has a strictly referential function; gesture can have a demarcative function responsible for segmenting the verbal utterance. Likewise, one observes a distribution of tasks within the referential function. For example, the gestural sign may formulate a notion that the spoken utterance will subsequently confirm; it completes the verbal information that it ‘gives so that it can be seen’ or on which it comments. Verbal information and kinesic information often disambiguate each other reciprocally.
Conclusion 
Gesture anticipates speech.â•… In view of the multichannel nature of utterance and the equivalent functions performed by the diverse channels, it is important for the study of the gestural sign in relation to the spoken word to distinguish between temporal and semantic correlations between gesture and speech. Temporal correlation does not imply semantic correlation. A gestural unit and a verbal unit may be perfectly synchronized without there being any synchrony in the respective information they convey. In fact, the gestural information often precedes the verbal information it complements. Gesture sometimes functions like the title of what is going to be said by instantaneously summarizing the essential content of the utterance. Moreover, the fact that it maintains its pre-verbal status during utterance production means that it can be interpreted as an aid to the verbalization of thought and thus serves an utterance function. It also creates cognitive suspense for the interlocutor engaged in the alternating game of tension-relaxation which allows him to progressively discover the semantic content of the speaker’s utterance and empathically participate in the elaboration of the content. It orchestrates the relationship between communication partners and effectively maintains their mutual interest and attention. There is a tendency, at least in France, to contrast a skilled and informative speaker who masters his verbal expression well with a speaker who is wrapped up in his subject and fully exploits the possibilities of bimodal expression spontaneously in order to get his message across. Examples analysed in Chapter 9 show how constant switching between the gestural and verbal channels, as information is asynchronously distributed across them, would catch the attention of the interlocutor, who is listening and watching out for information he can piece together. In fact, a good speaker uses the referential function of gesture on purpose, because its predictive function allows him to maintain his interlocutor’s attention better. Hence referential gesture indirectly serves an interactive function with an instructive character. These different functions are found to be mutually helpful. Hypothesis concerning anticipation.â•… The fact that what is expressed by co-speech gesture anticipates the informational content of what is expressed in words leads me to put forward a hypothesis about differentiation in the type and timing of the mental imagery evoked during utterance. I propose that the bimodal expression of mental images differs depending on whether or not they are shared by a linguistic community and that, as a general rule, gesture would anticipate speech in the case of original imagery, and gesture and speech would be produced simultaneously in the case of figurative locutions. Hence a speaker would express a spontaneous ‘original’ image first gesturally then verbally, whereas he would usually express a ‘conventional’ image using gesture and speech simultaneously. Exceptional cases where gesture anticipates the verbalization of figurative locutions may be explained by two gestures splitting the mental image between them or by a concern for greater expressivity. These would be the only reasons why a gestural anticipation would occur ‘unexpectedly’.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
If the gesture represents the visible form of an idea, i.e. the sketch of a concept, it is to be expected that the gestural formulation anticipates and probably facilitates the verbal formulation of the concept. The gestural sign’s anticipation of the verbal sign is the logical correlate of the gesture’s semiotic specificity. Specific properties of the gestural sign.â•… The analytic approach proposed reveals principles which govern how connections between gestures and notions may be created via gestural signs. One gesture may evoke several notions, either singly on different occasions (polysemy), or simultaneously on one occasion (polysign): one gesture contains several gestural signs which can be activated either alternatively or simultaneously. Inversely, one notion may be evoked by several gestures (variation): different gestures contain the same gestural sign. Systematic analysis of the interaction between these phenomena of variation and polysemy allows one to find evidence of the existence of different analogical links activated within a gesture, either separately or in combination. I have shown that the gestural sign can evoke a notion (reference), deduced from the context (inference), and how its comparison with other possible gestural signs in the same situation (contrastive value) allows one to specify its particular meaning. In this respect, a linguistic approach proves to be useful: Saussurean principles are applied to isolate and ascertain the ‘value’ of a gestural sign. Otherwise, in order to gain an understanding of the properties specific to the gestural sign, it is advisable to free oneself of preconceptions which compel one to see gesture as operating solely within a linguistic framework and thus reduce the scope of one’s vision and hence the possibility of understanding of how it may signify in its own right. One of the specific properties of co-speech gesture that differentiates it from words is its ability to signify several notions simultaneously. This is due to its structural characteristics: not just one but each gestural component can be referential. For example, the choice of hand, its configuration, orientation, the position or localization of the gesture, the various attributes of the movement may each convey one or more different meanings. Preconceptual schema.â•… The semanticity of the co-speech gestural sign is due to its origin in everyday activity, and it remains a motivated sign even when representing abstract objects. My study of gestures of cutting, for example, extracted from fragments of conversation selected from different corpora, demonstrates how gesture expresses the percept underlying the concept. Gesture appears as the product of a perceptual abstraction from reality. It represents a preconceptual schema, an intermediary between the concrete and the abstract, which allows it to evoke either one or the other equally well. For example, the schema of cutting implicitly appears in numerous and varied notions: separation, cutting into elements, division into two halves, blockage, refusal, elimination, negation, the end, stopping, decision, determination, measurement, categorization, categorical character, and interruption. An
Conclusion 
ideal, abstract, and adaptable prototype is constructed on the basis of concrete acts. The gesture of cutting represents the visual and proprioceptive operational schema and, through it, the two extremes of the semantic continuum going from the concrete to the abstract: from cutting a real object into pieces and the cognitive dissecting task of analysis. Despite its motivated character and the physical concreteness of its signifier, the gestural sign operates at a certain level of abstraction. Kinogenesis of representations.â•… The systematic analysis of co-speech gesture shows that it is the expression of a preconceptual schema. As such, it often precedes the verbal expression of the corresponding concept. One sees the gesture give the metaphorical image of the abstract notion, often well in advance of this being put into words. This shows that the referential gesture is not an illustrator, neither of the spoken word, nor of what has already been thought. It represents what is currently being thought. It expresses the mental activity that is overseeing the utterance process of the ongoing thought, the metaphorical imagery that underlies thoughts being put into words. In short, it bears witness to ideational activity. Gestural referentiality is an indicator of ideation, of the spontaneity of the thought to be put into words. This mental processing could explain the phenomenon of gesture anticipating speech. Gestural expression may even be pre-verbal in two respects: from an historical evolutionary perspective, and at the moment of utterance. Insofar as it expresses the percept on which a concept is primarily based, it remains preverbal during the production of a creative utterance: it provides a metaphorical image of the notion to be put into words. One seems to witness a ‘kinogenesis’ of symbolic representations. The essential idea is that a process that once played a role in the evolution of language in the distant past is recapitulated in the utterance process that is now a cornerstone of being human. This recapitulation is evidenced by gestural manifestations of metaphorical processes, on the one hand, and by the frequency of their anticipation of speech, on the other. The strong hypothesis is that the roots of language are anchored in perception; this may be observed in children and appears to be confirmed by the analysis of co-speech gesture in adults from both the semantic viewpoint (gestural expression of pre-concepts) and the temporal viewpoint (gestural formulation precedes verbal formulation of the referent during creative utterance production). This therefore poses the fundamental question of the contribution of the symbolic potential of gesture in oral communication, and its role in cognition. The Body in the Mind and …â•… The Mind in the Body. It is hoped that the reader will find the systematic analysis of co-speech gestures presented in this book both enlightening and usefully applicable to his or her field of study. It demonstrates the importance of gesture in the utterance of thought and how gesture expresses deep perceptual schemas via spontaneous non-conscious iconicity, thus confirming the existence of spatial metaphors underlined by cognitive linguistics. Furthermore, it brings to light others which are even less conscious and just as fundamental.
 Elements of meaning in gesture
Indeed, in-depth analysis of the gestural sign highlights its motivated character. Inquiry into this motivation leads one to home in on the perceptual-motor experience of the body in physical interaction with its environment. This return to the origins highlights the non-conscious, physico-symbolic, but nevertheless functional information conveyed by the gestural sign operating on several levels of consciousness. Quite often it is its deep motivation, its non-conscious ‘symbolic action’ that is revealed to be most semantically relevant during speech production. Knowledge of this root meaning enables one to explain the spontaneous choice of one particular kinesic expression rather than another one and, in this way, to gain a deeper understanding of the utterance. Fathoming out the motivation of the gestural sign also helps one to understand how the gesturer-speaker activates a process which is shared with his interlocutor, whereby abstract notions are generated in order to facilitate cognition and communication. The living process of abstraction enables him to express himself better and to make himself understood. The expression of the experience ‘imprinted’ in the body before it was mentalized (Body in the Mind) naturally revives and follows the known path of ‘ascending’ to the abstract once again. The imprints of experience thus re-generate abstract thought. The gesturer-speaker short-cuts the known path towards the abstract via a stylized kinesic expression (Mind in the Body), in order to communicate this embodied and often non-conscious cognition that is communally shared with his interlocutor. The abstractions in our minds are thus made visible as they re-emerge in our bodies.
References Anderson, S.W., M. Koulomzin, B. Beebe & J. Jaffe (2002). Visual attention and self-grooming behaviors among four-month-old infants: Indirect evidence pointing to a developmental role for mirror neurons. In M.I. Stamenov & V. Gallese (Eds.), Mirror neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language (pp. 295–304). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Aristotle: Poetics. Ed. and translated by S. Halliwell (1995). In Poetics, Longinus: On the Sublime; Demetrius: On Style. Loeb Classical Library No. 199. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bateson, G. (1977). Vers une écologie de l’↜esprit. Paris: Le Seuil. Berthoz, A. (1997). Le sens du mouvement. Paris: Odile Jacob. Birdwhistell, R.L. (1952/1970). Kinesics and context: Essays on Body-Motion Communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Boutet, D. (2008). Une morphologie de la gestualité: structuration articulaire. In D. Boutet. & C. Cuxac (Eds.), Le signifiant gestuel: langues des signes et gestualité co-verbale. Cahiers de Linguistique Analogique, 5, 81–115. Bouvet, D. (1989 2e ed.). La parole de l’enfant: pour une éducation bilingue de l’enfant sourd. Paris: PUF, Coll. Le fil rouge. Bouvet, D. (1996). Approche polyphonique d’un récit produit en langue des signes française. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon/ARCI. Bouvet, D. (1997). Le corps et la métaphore dans les langues gestuelles. Paris: L’Harmattan. Bouvet, D. & M.A. Morel (2002). Le ballet et la musique de la parole. Le geste et l’intonation dans le dialogue oral en français. Coll. Bibliothèque de Faits de Langues. Paris: Éditions Ophrys. Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Jena, Fischer. Butcher, C. & S. Goldin-Meadow (2000). Gesture and the transition from one- to two-word speech: When hand and mouth come together. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 235–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Calbris, G. (1979). L’index signifiant. Études de Linguistique Appliquée (ELA), 35, 91–109. Calbris, G. (1980). Etude des expressions mimiques conventionnelles françaises dans le cadre d’une communication non verbale. Semiotica, 29–3/4, 245–347. Calbris, G. (1981). Etude des expressions mimiques conventionnelles françaises dans le cadre d’une communication non verbale testées sur des Hongrois. Semiotica, 35–1/2, 125–156. Calbris, G. (1983). Contribution à une analyse sémiologique de la mimique faciale et gestuelle française dans ses rapports avec la communication verbale: 1. Expérimentation, 2. Taxinomie, 3. Synthèse, 4. Annexe illustrative (1478 pp.). [Doctoral Dissertation, Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris III]. Calbris, G. (1985a). Espace-Temps: Expression gestuelle du temps. Semiotica, 55–1/2, 43–73. Calbris, G. (1985b). La mimique faciale et gestuelle française du refus: motivation. Geste et Image, 4, 11–37. Laignes: Quatre Vents Editeur. Calbris, G. (1987). Geste et motivation. Semiotica, 65–1/2, 57–96.
 Elements of meaning in gesture Calbris, G. (1989). Parallélisme phono-gestuel. In Graines de parole. Puissance du verbe et traditions orales: – Textes offerts à Geneviève Calame-Griaule, réunis par l’équipe du cnrs ‘Langage et Culture en Afrique de l↜’Ouest’ (pp. 403–417). Paris: Editions du cnrs. Calbris, G. (1990). The Semiotics of French Gestures. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press. Calbris, G. (1993). Polysémie et variantes gestuelles. Degrés, 74, f.1-f.13. Calbris, G. (1995). Anticipation du geste sur la parole. Actes du Colloque “Verbal, non verbal: frères jumeaux de la parole?” CLA Besançon/ANEFLE, 17 juin 1995 (pp. 12–18). Calbris, G. (1997). Multicanalité de la communication et multifonctionnalité du geste. In J. Perrot (Ed.), Polyphonie pour Iván Fónagy (pp. 61–70). Paris: L’Harmattan. Calbris, G. (1998). Geste et images. Semiotica, 118–1/2, 105–120. Calbris, G. (1999). Gestuelle implicative de Jospin. La Linguistique, 35, fasc. 1: 113–131. Calbris, G. (2002). L↜’espace symbolique révélé par la gestuelle coverbale d’un homme politique. Mots. Les langages du politique, n° 68, Les métaphores spatiales en politique, 45–58. ENS Editions. Calbris, G. (2003a). Multireferentiality of coverbal gestures. In M. Rector, I. Poggi & N. Trigo (Eds.), Gestures. Meaning and Use (pp. 203–207). Oporto: Universidad Fernando Pessoa Press. Calbris, G. (2003b). Deixis representative. In C. Müller & R. Posner (Eds.) The semantics & pragmatics of everyday gestures. The Berlin conference. Berlin: Weidler. Calbris, G. (2003c). From cutting an object to a clear cut analysis: Gesture as the representation of a preconceptual schema linking concrete actions to abstract notions. Gesture, 3/1, 19–46. Calbris, G. (2003d). L↜’expression gestuelle de la pensée d’un homme politique. Paris: Editions du CNRS, collection Communication. Calbris, G. (2008). From left to right… Coverbal gestures and their symbolic use of space. In A. Cienki & C. Müller (Eds.), Gesture Studies 3, Metaplor and Gesture (pp. 27–53). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Calbris, G. & J. Montredon (1980). Oh là là! Expression intonative et mimique. Paris: CLE International. Calbris, G. & J. Montredon (1986). Des gestes et des mots pour le dire. Paris: CLE International. Calbris, G. & J. Montredon (1992) La Mauvaise Langue: du geste à l’expression imagée, au jeu de mots et au théâtre (et video de R. Didi). Besançon: Editions Media 1992 de l’Université de Franche-Comté. Calbris, G. & J. Montredon (2011). Clés pour l↜’oral: Gestes et paroles dans l↜a conversation. Paris: Hachette. Calbris, G. & M. Tournier (1999). Chirac et Jospin face à face: des précisions gestualisées.In Groupe Saint-Cloud (Ed.), L’image candidate à l’élection présidentielle de 1995: Analyse des discours dans les médias (pp. 71–94). Paris: l’Harmattan. Capirci O., A. Contaldo, C. Caselli & V. Volterra (2005). From action to language through gesture: A longitudinal perspective. Gesture, 5:1/2 (2005), 155–177. Chiu, C., Y. Hong & R.M. Krauss (under editorial review). Gaze direction and speech disfluency in conversation. www.columbia.edu/~rmk7/wip.abst.html. Church, R.B. & S. Goldin-Meadow (1986). The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition, 2, 43–71. Cienki, A. (1998). Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In J.-P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap (pp.189–204). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
References 
Cienki, A. & C. Müller (2008). Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 483–502). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Colletta, J.-M. (2004). Le développement de la parole chez l’enfant âgé de 6 à 11 ans. Corps, langage et cognition. Liège: P. Mardaga. Condon, W.S. (1976). An analysis of behavioral organisation. Sign Language Studies, 13, 285–318. Cook, M. (1977). Gaze and mutual gaze in social encounters, American Scientist, 65, 328–333. Copple, M. (2003). Gesture and Speech: André Leroi-Gourhan’s theory of the co-evolution of manual and intellectual activities. Gesture 3/1 (2003), 47–94. Cosnier, J. (1982). Communications et langages gestuels. In Cosnier J., A. Berrendonner, J. Coulon & C. Orecchioni. (Eds.) Les voies du langage: communications verbales, gestuelles et animales (pp. 255–304). Paris: Dunod. Cosnier, J. & A. Brossard (Eds.) (1984). La communication non verbale. Neuchâtel-Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé. Cristopolou, C. & J. D. Bonvillian (1985). Sign language pantomime and gestural processing in aphasic persons: A review. Journal of Communication Disorders, Volume 18, Issue 1, February 1985, 1–20. Cuxac, C. (2000). La Langue des Signes Française – les voies de l↜’iconicité. Faits de Langues N° 15,16. Paris: Ophrys. Daniloff, J.K., J.D. Noll, M. Fristoe & L.L. Lloyd (Eds.) (1982). Gesture recognition in patients with aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 43–49. Darwin, C (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals (chap. 12). London: John Murray. Duneton, C. (1978). “La puce à l’↜oreille”. Anthologie des expressions populaires avec leur origine. Paris: Stock. Efron, D. ([1941] 1972). Gesture, race and culture: A tentative study of some of the spatio-temporal and “linguistic” aspects of the gestural behavior of eastern Jews and southern Irtalians in NewYork City, living under similar as well as different environmental conditions. Mouton: The Hague. Efron, David (1940). Gesture and Environment. New York: Kings Crown Press Ekman, P. & W. V. Friesen (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98. Ellis, E. & J. Montredon (1990). Ngaatjatjarra gestures related to time and space (Umatic Video 30 mn). The University of Queensland-Institute for Aboriginal development, Alice Springs. Enfield, N.J. (2001). ‘Lip-pointing’: a discussion of form and function with reference to data from Laos. Gesture, (2001) 1.2, 185–212. Enfield, N.J. (2003). Producing and editing diagrams using co-speech gesture: Spatializing nonspatial relations in explanations of kinship in Laos. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 13(1), 7–50. Enfield, N.J. (2004). On linear segmentation and combinatorics in co-speech gesture: A symmetry-dominance construction in Lao fish trap descriptions. Semiotica, 149, 1–4, 57–123. Evans, V. (2004). How we conceptualize time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Essays in Arts and Sciences, Vol XXXII, n° 2, 13–44. Exline, R.V. & L.C. Winters (1965). Affective relations and mutual glances in dyads. In S.S. Tomkins & C.E. Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition and personality: Empirical sutdies (pp. 319–350). New-York: Springer. Fauconnier, G. (1984). Les espaces mentaux. Paris: Minuit. Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
 Elements of meaning in gesture Fónagy, I. (1970, 1971). Les bases pulsionnelles de la phonation I et II. Revue française de psychanalyse, (1970) vol. 34, 1: 101–136; (1971) vol. 35, 4: 543–591. Paris: PUF. Fónagy, I. (1971). Double coding in speech. Semiotica, 3, 189–222. Fónagy, I. (1983). La vive voix: Essais de psycho-phonétigue. Paris: Payot. Fónagy, I. (2001). Languages within Language. An evolutive approach. coll. Foundations of Semiotics 13. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Freedman, N. (1977). Hands, words and mind: On the structuralization of body movements during discourse and the capacity of verbal representation. In N. Freedman & S. Grand (Eds.), Communicative structures and psychic structure. A psychoanalytic interpretation of communication (pp. 109–132). New York and London: Plenum Press. Freud, S. (1905/1942). Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie. In Gesammelte Werke, 5, 27–145. London: Imago. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Goffman, E. (1956) The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburg: University of Edinburg. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The Bellknap Press of Harvard University Press. Goodwin, M.H. (1980). Process of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 303–317. Hadar, U., A. Burstein, R.M Krauss & N. Soroker (1998). Ideational gestures and speech: A neurolinguistic investigation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 59–76. Hadar U., R. Dar, & A. Teitelman. (2001). Gesture during speech in first and second language: Implications for lexical retrieval. Gesture, (2001) 1.2, 151–165. Hari, R., N. Forss, S. Avikainen, E. Kirveskari, S. Salenius & G. Rizzolatti (1998). Activation of human primary motor cortex during action observation: A neuromagnetic study. Proceedings or the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) of the USA, 95, 15061–15065 Hermann, I. (1936). Sich-Anklammern, Auf-Suche-Gehen. Internationale Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse, 22, 349–370. Hymes, D. (1984). Vers la compétence de communication. Paris: Credif-Hatier. Holler, J. & G. Beattie (2003). Pragmatics aspects of representational gestures. Do speakers use them to clarify verbal ambiguity for the listener? Gesture, 3.2 (2003), 127–154. Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and Poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.) Style and Language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Janda, L. (2000). Cognitive Linguistics. SLING2K Workshop, 18.02.2000. Bloomington:Indiana. http://www.seelrc.org/glossos/issues/8/janda.pdf. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jousse, M. (1936). Le mimisme humain et l’anthropologie du langage. Revue anthropologique, tome LVII, 201–215. Jousse, M. (1969/1974). L’anthropologie du geste, Tome I (415 p). Paris: Gallimard. Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze directions in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 1–47. Kendon, A. (1972). Some relationships between body motion and speech: An analysis of an example. In A.W. Siegman & B. Hope (Eds.), Studies in Dyadic Communication (pp. 177–210). New York: Pergamon Press. Kendon, A. (1980). Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In M.R. Key (Ed.), The relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication (pp. 207–227). The Hague: Mouton.
References 
Kendon, A. (1988). Sign languages of Aboriginal Australia. Cambridge University Press. Kendon, A. (1990). Some context for context analysis: A view of the origins of structural studies of face-to-face interaction. In A. Kendon Conducting Interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters (pp. 15–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kendon, A. (1992). Abstraction in gesture. Semiotica, 90 (3/4): 225–250 Kendon, A. (1993). Space, time and gesture. Degrés, 74, b 3–16. Kendon, A. (1995). Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversational. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 247–279. Kendon, A. (2000). Andrea de Jorio: Gesture in Naples and gesture in classical antiquity. Andrea de Jorio’s (1832) La mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire napoletano translated by A. Kendon. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kendon, A. (2002). Some uses of the head shake. Gesture, 2:2 (2002), 147–182. Kendon, A. (2004a). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kendon, A. (2004b). Review of “Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think” by Susan Goldin Meadow (2003). Gesture, 4.1, 91–101. Klein, H. (1987). The future precedes the past: time in Toba. Word, 38, 173–185. Krauss, R.M., Y. Chen & R. F. Gottesman (2000). Lexical gestures and lexical access: a process model. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and Gesture (pp. 261–283). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kwon, J.-B. (1998). Stratégies de communication verbale et non verbale d’étudiantes coréennes en cours d’apprentissage du français langue étrangère. Doctoral Dissertation, Université de Franche-Comté, France. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Le Baron, C. & J. Streeck. (2000). Gestures, knowledge, and the world. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and Gesture (pp. 118–138). New York: Cambridge University Press. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964–1965). Le geste et la parole. Tome 1: Technique et langage. Tome 2: La mémoire et les rythmes. Paris: Albin Michel. [1993. Gesture and speech. (tr. A. Bostock Berger). Cambridge MA: October Books, MIT Press]. Martinet, A. (1949). La Double Articulation linguistique. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague, 5, 30–37. [1962]. Functional View of Language (II: Towards a functional syntax). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mauss, M. (1935). Les techniques du corps. Journal de Psychologie, 32, 271–293. McClave, E. (2000). Linguistic functions of head movements in the context of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 855–878. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, University Press. McNeill, D. (2000a). Growth points, catchments and contexts. Cognitive Studies, Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science. Society, vol. 7, n ° 1, 22–36. McNeill, D. (Ed.) (2000b). Language and Gesture. Cambridge University Press. McNeill, D. (2002). Gesture and language dialectic. Acta linguistica Hafniensia, 34, 7–37. McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McNeill, D. & S. Duncan (2000). Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 141–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McNeill, D. & E. Levy (1982). Conceptual representations in language activity and gesture. In R. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics. Chichester: John Wiley & Co.
 Elements of meaning in gesture McNeill, D., F. Quek, K–E. McCullough & al. (2001). Catchments, prosody and discourse, Gesture, 1, 9–33. McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 92:â•›350-371. Meltzoff, A.N. & M.K. Moore (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198, 75–78. Meltzoff, A.N. & M.K. Moore (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development, 54, 702–709. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard. Miracle, A.W. & J. Yapita (1981). Time and space in Aymara. In M.J. Hardman (Ed.), The Aymara language and its social and cultural context (pp. 33–56). Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Montagner, H. (1978). L’↜enfant et la communication. Paris: Pernoud-Stock. Montes, R.G. (1998). Interactions between speech and gesture: Evidence from repair sequences. Communication, 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Reims, France, 19–24 July 1998. Montredon, J. (2001). Dimensions interculturelles: expression gestuelle du temps. In F. Carton (Ed.), Le Français dans le monde, janvier 2001, Oral: variabilité et apprentissages (pp. 42–52). Paris: CLE International. Morris, D. (1977). Manwatching: A field guide to human behavior. New York: H.N. Abrams. Müller, C. (2004). Forms and uses of the Palm Up Open Hand. A case of a Gesture Family? In C. Müller & R. Posner (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures. Proceedings of the Berlin conference, April 1998 (pp. 233–256). Berlin: Weidler. Núñez, R.E. & E. Sweetser (2006). With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguisticc comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30, 3, 401–450. Papas, W. (1972). Grec éclair. Athens: A. Samouhos. Parrill, F. & E. Sweetser (2004). What we mean by meaning: Conceptual integration in gesture analysis and transcription. Gesture, 4:2 (2004), 197–219. Piaget, J. (1936). La naissance de l’intelligence chez l’enfant. Paris, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé. Queneau, R. (1959). Zazie dans le métro. Paris: Gallimard. Rey, A. & S. Chantreau (1979). Dictionnaire des expressions et locutions figurées, Collection Les Usuels du Robert. Paris: Le Robert. Rizzolatti, G., L. Fogassi & V. Gallese (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 661–670. Sapir, E. (1927/1949). Selected Writings of Edward Sapir. In D.G. Mandelbaum (Ed.), Language, Culture and Personality. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Saussure, F. de. (1916/1972). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Schegloff, E.A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes in interaction. An exercise in conversation analysis. Social psychology quaterly, vol. 50, n° 2, 101–104. Scherer, K. (1980). The functions of nonverbal signs in conversation. In R.N. St Clair & H. Giles (Eds.), The social and psychological contexts of language (pp. 225–244). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Erlbaum. Sherzer, J. (1972). Verbal and nonverbal deixis: the pointed lip gesture among the San Blas Cuna. In Language in Society, 2(1), 117–131. Slama-Cazacu, T. (1977). Le concept de syntaxe mixte, recherches autour d’une hypothèse, Études de Linguistique Appliquée (ELA), 27, 114–123. Sorin-Barreteau, L. (1996). Le langage gestuel des Mofu-Gudur, Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris 5-René Descartes, 636 p.
References 
Stokoe, W.C. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication Systems of the American Deaf. Studies in linguistics: occasional papers 8. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo. Stokoe, W.C., D.C. Casterline & C.G. Croneberg (1976). A dictionary of American sign language on linguistic principles. Silver Spring: Linstok Press. Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manu-facturing of meaning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Volterra, V. (Ed.) (1987). La Lingua Italiana dei Segni: La comunicazione visivo-gestuale dei sordi. Bologna: Il Mulino. Wilkins, D.P. (2003). Why pointing with the index finger is not a universal (in socio-cultural and semiotic terms). In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing. Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 171–215). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Winkin, Y. (Ed.) (1981). La nouvelle communication. (Bateson, Birdwhistell, Goffman, Hall, Jackson, Scheflen, Sigman, Watzlawick. Textes recueillis et présentés par Yves Winkin). Paris: Le Seuil. Yau, S.-C. (1992). Création gestuelle et débuts du langage: Création de langues gestuelles chez des sourds isolés. Paris: Editions Langages Croisés. Zlatev, J. (2002). Mimesis: the “missing link” between signals and symbols in phylogeny and ontogeny ? In A. Pajunen (Ed.), Mimesis, sign and language evolution (pp. 93–122). Publications in General Linguistics 3. Turku: University of Turku Press.
Appendix A
1. Fist []
2. Pyramid [∆]
3. Bowl [Ω]
4. Right Angle [T]
5. Level Hand [=]
6. Palm Forwards [H]
7. Rigid Hand [Iu]
8. Oblique Palm [√]
9. Frame [∏]
10. Open Book [V]
11. Rigid Hand [If]
12. Index [↑]
13. Wide Gap [/ /]
14. Narrow Gap [//]
15. Finger Pinch [<]
16. Ring [O]
Appendix B Examples 40 Il faut chercher des méthodes | assez souples, [G I.b] pas être idéologique, 41 Comme par exemple ils l’ont fait | sur l’Irak [D I.b] par une décision des Nations unies 42 Si c’est la flexibilité, [D I.b] c’↜est la régression sociale 43 [D h=, I.b] cette chute dans une relative précarité 44 les chômeurs âgés de plus de 55 ans [G I.b] qui ont cotisé 40 ans à la Sécurité sociale 45 Donc voilà [G I.b] une mesure qui est une mesure d’incitation au travail, forte, et je crois novatrice. 46 [G I.b] 3%. Aujourdhui, on oublie tout ça et on nous dit: 47 Donc, [G I.b] notre action, elle va être menée sur le long terme, 48 à qui les Nations-Unies, [G I.b] légitimement, avaient imposé des contraintes 49 [G I.h levée comme un couperet] Sur ce point, nous pensons les choses de la façon [.b s’abat] la plus claire. 50 Et de toute façon, j’ai toujours pensé que [G I.b] construire l’Europe ne signifiait pas effacer la France. 51 et [•d sur D I.b] en opérant une rupture assez fondamentale | avec le passé. 52 Alors oui, [• sur G I.b] nous voulons couper le lien entre le pouvoir politique et les juges et le parquet. 53 Mais [∏.b] j’ai tenu mon engagement. 54 Je ne pouvais [∏.b] même pas trancher de la réalité du dossier 55 Et donc, [∏.b] à aucun moment je ne leur ai caché ma pensée 56 [∏.b] En tout cas nous, il sera de notre responsabilité de prendre des décisions. 57 et en plus par référendum, [∏.b] sur cette question. 58 [h∏.b] Le fait d’avoir une monnaie unique, il n’y a plus de spéculation. 59 L’euro [∏.b] ça doit être un atout ou un tremplin pour plus de croissance 60 tranquillement [∏.b] mais de façon déterminée 61 Nous, nous voulons être [G L.b] volontaristes dans la lutte pour l’emploi. 62 [D L.b] qui décide [D L.ah] de proposer un projet de loi de ratification 63 mais [G L.b] de toute façon, au minimum ça. 64 [G L.b] et là, le contrôle reste à être poussé jusqu’au bout. 65 [D L.b + tête.b] je suis sûr que ce mouvement va se poursuivre 66 J’ai d’abord voulu un gouvernement resserré, qui [h∏] soit une équipe soudée, compacte. un exécutif, [.b] c’est fait pour agir. La diversité est au Parlement, 67 La diversité est au Parlement, [h∏] l’exécutif ça doit être au contraire l’unité, même si dans ce gouvernement, on peut 68 [h∏] Si on essaie de trouver quand même la raison principale, 69 une rupture de l’égalité en faveur [h∏] de quartiers ou d’écoles 70 J’ai voulu poser, par ma présence à Bruxelles, dans une manifestation, [h∏] une question européenne qui est la question de l’emploi en Europe, qui est la question des décisions
Appendix B 
71 Et donc, [h∏] il n’est pas vrai que les choses [.d] vont se terminer | [.g] comme elles se seraient terminées | si y avait pas eu 72 J’étais [∏] en face d’eux, de leurs représentants 73 faire une espèce | de mise à plat | [∏] du dossier | de l’industrie | automobile 74 Vous avez vu quand même cet échec euh | [∏] de la privatisation. 75 Et puis ce qui me guidera enfin, c’est que [∏] je suis attaché au [.b] service public, 76 [∏] Je pense que ce qui est important, c’est que les ministres, 77 [h∏] pour préparer des mesures qui, [∏-><-] à l’automne, tiendront compte des réalités telles qu’elles existent sur le terrain, 78 Vous croyez que | on invente des emplois comme ça? Non, [∏] il faut les bâtir | et les construire | 79 pendant toutes les vacances et | [∏] à la rentrée, ces dispositifs sont prêts 80 [∏] Et ils veulent [.b] tous une concertation, ils veulent pouvoir préparer 81 [∏] Le rendez-vous à l’automne | aura permis 82 C’est [h∏] notamment cette perspective de la diminution du temps de travail | que nous allons ouvrir 83 Bien | [∏] voilà les leçons à tirer, bien 84 il faudra naturellement [∏] tenir compte de cette dérive et 85 il faut trouver [∏] le juste cheminement entre. 86 si nous devons faire des efforts, notamment | [∏] pour éviter | un dérapage 87 mais [∏] par rapport auquel | nous avons, nous, apporté des aménagements 88 [∏] C’est dans ce cadre, par le dialogue avec le Parlement 89 le projet de loi de Finances | [∏d.i] qui sera présenté | au Parlement | à l’automne. 90 voilà, nous essayons [∏] de définir un chemin qui tient compte 91 [∏] dans une certaine mesure pour trouver un cheminement praticable 92 qui tienne compte [∏] de ces contradictions, 93 en tout cas [∏] c’est par rapport à cela que je cheminerais 94 est-ce que [∏] c’est ça qu’il faut faire ? 95 [∏.g] Mais c’est pas moi qui l’ai signé et le Président de la République m’a dit 96 un certain nombre de discussions et de négociations [∏] si bien que nous avons conclu en quelque sorte [∏.a] ensemble à Amsterdam 97 [∏] Nous avons également | bien travaillé dans l’esprit de la cohabitation sur un certain nombre de dossiers africains 98 [∏] Donc, je pense que cette cohabitation [∏] se mène comme elle doit se mener.
Postscript: A semiotic and linguistic perspective on gestures Geneviève Calbris’ work is a pioneering strand of gesture research. It spans over thirty years and constitutes a unique approach towards the analysis of gestures. Calbris began to publish in the 1980s and, along with Adam Kendon and David McNeill, she has made a paramount contribution to the field of Gesture Studies. With her particular semiotic and linguistic perspective on gestures, she has developed a singular approach, which complements both current and established research, and may serve as an inspiration for psychological, ethnographical, and linguistic studies on gestures with speech. For many years, Calbris’ work attracted little attention among contemporary students of gesture, despite the fact that a version of her work was made available as long ago as 1990 with her book The Semiotics of French Gestures (Indiana University Press), an English translation of her thesis. However, this book was one of the few books devoted gesture available at the time and I personally became very much interested in her views on the linguistic and semiotic structures of gestures. As a result of this interest, I invited her to the Freie Universität Berlin where, jointly with Winfried Busse, we taught a course “Les gestes des Français” in the summer of 2000. Listening to her lectures and discussing them in class, I found her particular view on the analysis of gestures was to be highly pertinent for the evolving field of gesture studies. I was convinced that a more widespread reception of her work was hindered not only because most of it was published in French, but also because it was conducted, analyzed, and presented very much in terms of a French intellectual tradition. A very condensed and sometimes implicit expository style made the reception of her written work for a German and Anglo-Saxon audience difficult. When presenting her ideas in class, however, it was very easy for all of us to follow her argumentation and analyses. Therefore, I began to encourage her to write down her approach, exactly in the way she had presented it in class, believing that this would make her important insights more accessible to a wider international audience. A further important step in the process of stimulating her to work on such an encompassing presentation of her approach was the plenary lecture she gave at the First International Conference for Gesture Â�Studies, held at Austin in 2002. Soon after this, Geneviève Calbris agreed to develop a plan for her book and a contract was agreed to for it to be published by John Benjamins in the newly established series, Gesture Studies. With generous financial help from John Benjamins and also institutional support from the European University Viadrina
 Elements of meaning in gesture
in Frankfurt (Oder), it was possible to begin work on creating an English version of Calbris’ French text. Elements of Meaning in Gesture is the product of much hard work on the author’s part. It also owes much to the translator, Mary Copple. Without her gift for precision and her perseverence, this book would not have seen the light of the day. The publication of this book is a very great pleasure for me. It has been about ten years since I first thought that Calbris’ work should be made available to an international readership. Now it is here, and I am convinced that it will constitute a major touchstone for the field of Gesture Studies. Cornelia Müller Frankfurt (Oder) March 2011
Person index
A Anderson, S.W.╇ 58 Arnheim, R.╇ xvi, 294 Aristotle╇ 10, 38
Ellis, E.╇ 143 Enfield, N.J.╇ 95, 160, 221, 303 Evans, V.╇ 131 Exline, R.V.╇ 44
B Bateson, G.╇ 38 Beattie, G.╇ 277, 302 Beebe, B.╇ 58 Berthoz, A.╇ 59 Birdwhistell, R.L.╇ 38, 42 Bonvillian, J. D.╇ 269 Boutet, D.╇ 325 Bouvet, D.╇ 44, 58 Brossard, A.╇ 38–39 Bühler, K.╇ 42 Butcher, C.╇ 39
F Fauconnier, G.╇ 295 Fónagy, I.╇ 20, 40, 205, 269, 291 Freedman, N.╇ 266, 281 Freud, S.╇ 170, 269 Friesen, W.V.╇ 36, 269
C Calbris, G.╇ xvi, 5, 53, 61, 65, 103, 121, 128, 140, 141, 142, 143, 174, 190, 198, 199, 217, 221, 222, 231, 251, 258, 267, 268, 282, 283, 302, 303, 308, 312, 313, 315, 319, 324, 328, 329, 331 Capirci, O.╇ 39 Chantreau, S.╇ 204 Chiu, C.╇ 44 Church, R.B.╇ 295 Cienki, A.╇ 10, 134 Colletta, J.-M.╇ 39 Condon, W.S.╇ 49, 66 Cook, M.╇ 44 Copple, M.M.╇ 1, 2 Cosnier, J.╇ 36, 38, 39, 40 Cristopolou, C.╇ 269 Cuxac, C.╇ 58, 142 D Daniloff, J.K.╇ 269 Darwin, C.╇ xv, 206, 318 Duncan, S.╇ 48 Duneton, C.╇ 216 E╇ Efron, D.╇ xvi, 36 Ekman, P.╇ 36, 269
G Garfinkel, H.╇ 38 Goffman, E.╇ 38 Goldin-Meadow, S.╇ 3, 39, 295 Goodwin, M.H.╇ 174 H Hadar, U.╇ 258, 281 Hari, R.╇ 58 Hermann, I.╇ 269 Hymes, D.╇ 38 Holler, J.╇ 277, 302 Hong, Y.╇ 44 J Jaffe, J.╇ 58 Jakobson, R.╇ 42, 318 Janda, L.╇ 338 Johnson, M.╇ xvii, 3, 170, 288, 326 Jousse, M.╇ 2, 4 K Kendon, A.╇ xvii, 36, 38–39, 44, 49, 54, 66–67, 71, 142–143, 155, 157, 164, 174, 178, 216, 221, 224, 270–271, 282–283, 287, 295, 319, 331, 335–337 Klein, H.╇ 142 Koulomzin, M.╇ 58 Krauss, R.M.╇ 44, 281 Kwon, J.-B.╇ 258
 Person index L Lakoff, G.╇ xvii, 3, 170 Le Baron, C.╇ 288 Leroi-Gourhan, A.╇ 1, 2, 4 Levy, E.╇ 36 M Martinet, A.╇ 41 Mauss, M.╇ 4 McClave, E.╇ 174 McNeill, D.╇ xvii, 33, 36, 39, 48, 272, 277, 279–280, 303 Meltzoff, A.N.╇ 2 Merleau-Ponty, M.╇ 143, 344 Miracle, A.W.╇ 142 Montagner, H.╇ 98 Montes, R. G.╇ 258 Montredon, J.╇ 4, 43, 65, 143–144, 168, 214, 217, 220, 251 Moore, M.K.╇ 2 Morel, M.A.╇ 44 Morris, D.╇ 20, 97, 154, 157, 211, 213, 223, 269 Müller, C.╇ 10, 67 N Núñez, R.E.╇ 143 P Papas, W.╇ 214 Parrill, F.╇ 295 Piaget, J.╇ 3
Q Queneau, R.╇ 216 R Rey, A.╇ 204 Rizzolatti, G.╇ 2, 58 S Sapir, E.╇ 38 Saussure, F. de╇ 33, 311 Schegloff, E.A.╇ 174 Scherer, K.╇ 41–42 Sherzer, J.╇ 221 Slama-Cazacu, T.╇ 246–247 Sorin-Barreteau, L.╇ 143 Stokoe, W.C.╇ 59, 102 Streeck, J.╇ 288 Sweetser, E.╇ 143, 295 T Tournier, M.╇ 313 Turner, M.╇ 295 W Wilkins, D.P.╇ 221 Winkin, Y.╇ 38 Winters, L.C.╇ 44 Y Yapita, J.╇ 142 Yau, S.-C.╇ 59 Z Zlatev, J.╇ 3
Subject index
A abstract referent approximation╇ 31, 151, 153, 191 arithmetic vs. geometric average╇ 53, 277–279 categorical, decisive character╇ 116, 120–122, 218 certainty╇ 173, 175, 177, 180 condensation╇ 78, 150, 153 continuity╇ 140, 149 counterpart╇ 302 cycle╇ 151 decision╇ 121, 194 defined abstract object╇ 32, 70, 117, 118, 119 delimitation╇ 62, 116, 118, 123, 151, 298 directness╇ 179, 182, 183, 329 elimination╇ 16, 321 enclosure╇ 27, 28, 51 explanation╇ 291 finality, the end╇ 147, 180 flatness╇ 180 globality╇ 70, 71, 259, 293 introspection╇ 187, 188, 238, 240 levelling╇ 181 limit╇ 92, 192–194, 233, 234, 241 measure╇ 116, 119 nesting system╇ 261, 262 nothing(ness)╇ 155, 204–205, 226 obligation╇ 62, 179, 182 (one)self╇ 316 origin╇ 139 otherness╇ 316 path╇ 116, 118, 119 perfection╇ 20–22, 150, 153, 160–161, 166, 175, 179 power, maximum╇ 218–219 precision╇ 21–22, 67, 150, 161, 336–337 priority╇ 158 progression╇ 29, 158–159, 194, 294 progressive unwinding╇ 141 quantity╇ 150 excessive╇ 150, 152 large╇ 150, 152, 175, 178, 183 small╇ 15
two╇ 86 quintessence╇ 335 reduction╇ 150, 153 separation definitive╇ 321 into pieces╇ 322, 323, 325 series╇ 67–68 standardizing╇ 181 starting again╇ 139 strength maximum╇ 251, 329 moral value╇ 26–29 physical╇ 26–29 psychological╇ 26–29, 185, 237, 302 succession╇ 140, 150, 153 transfer╇ 59–60, 185, 237 uniqueness╇ 158 writing╇ 67 See also cutting, stop(ping), time, totality action schema. See schema analogical link╇ 10, 12, 13╇ alternation and simultaneity of╇ 241 confirmation of╇ 123–124, 167–170, 172–173 connective interplay between╇ 238–239 cumulated╇ 330 definition of╇ 6, 13 gesture variant’s use and╇ 224–228 identifying╇ 31–34, 217–225, 348–349 in╇ facial-gestural ensemble╇ 235–236 gesture╇ 236–237 gestural component╇ 237–238 Fist configuration╇ 28 Frame configuration╇ 119–120 totality (sign of)╇ 31–34, 328 types of polysign╇ 184 macro viewpoint on╇ 349–350 micro viewpoint on╇ 347–348 same link in different gestures╇ 120–123 symbolic associations of╇ 228–242 See also motivation, feature (relevant physical) attitude agreement, total╇ 174, 177
 Subject index anger╇ 251 blasé disgust╇ 204 capitulation╇ 166, 176, 177 confirmation╇ 102 contempt╇ 95, 204 contrition╇ 171 declaration╇ 86, 228 depreciation╇ 204–205 disapproval (vocal)╇ 41 doubt╇ 42–43, 198, 210, 318 embarrassment╇ 248 exaggeration, reaction to╇ 98 exasperation╇ 214, 247 exclamation╇ 86, 148, 202, 208, 236 French ‘Oh là là’╇ 251 increasing╇ 17–19, 28, 145–146 fearful trembling╇ 168 ignorance╇ 205, 206, 208, 248 incredulity╇ 217 insistence╇ 98, 102–103 obviousness╇ 108, 311 powerlessness╇ 168, 202, 248, 250–251 prudence╇ 17, 165–166 rejection╇ 199–203, 227 reprobation╇ 210, 318 repulsion╇ 25, 164, 166, 206–207 request to stop╇ 86 gesture variants of╇ 146, 148, 149, 169, 176 self-punishment╇ 172–173 tenderness╇ 97, 223 threat╇ 23, 172 vengeful response╇ 170–171, 218–219 warning╇ 23, 227, 250–251 See also refusal axis and degree of head rotation╇ 94 as pivotal line╇ 82 change of╇ 94, 99, 132, 134, 135, 141, 308 of growth╇ 308, 324–325 progression╇ 229, 308, 326 walking╇ 135, 136, 308, 324–325 writing╇ 132, 137, 308, 324–325 one physical, two symbolic╇ 89, 219, 229 B body part╇ 19, 24, 89–92 focused by gesture, code for╇ 79 form of╇ 90–92 (planar) orientation of╇ 85–86, 92, 93 relevance of╇ 77, 78 substitution between╇ 145–149
See also configuration body and mind╇ 353–354 Bowl configuration╇ 90, 105, 108, 152, 186, 292 C choreography discourse╇ 51–52 semantic╇ 52–53 coding╇ 101–103, 110 double, in speech╇ 40 example of╇ 109–110 gestural components╇ 104–109 communication bimodal╇ 266, 272, 351 verbal-gestural pair╇ 256, 272, 281, 285 verbal reformulation╇ 248–249, 284 channel╇ 40, 68 multifunctionality of each╇ 42–43 modality vs. channel of╇ 37, 39 multimodal╇ 5, 37–43, 260, 343–344 examples of╇ 247–266, 269–277 nonverbal vs. verbal╇ 39–42 communication partners interlocutor anticipating information╇ 261, 263, 281 empathy╇ 58, 268, 281, 344 shared experience╇ 11, 14, 244, 280, 288, 311, 344 speaker╇ 281 attitude of╇ 251 cognitive activity of╇ 271–273, 281 sketching an idea╇ 186, 263, 267, 281, 285, 340 concept from percept to╇ 327–341 preconcept expressed by gesture╇ 281 concrete and abstract concretization of the abstract╇ 290–293 metaphorical image of the abstract╇ 257, 340, 353 symbolization of the concrete╇ 288–290 configuration example╇ 90 iconic coding of╇ 105, 363 See also Bowl, Finger Pinch, Fist, Frame, Index, Level Hand, Narrow Gap, Oblique Palm, Palm Forwards, Pyramid, Right Angle, Rigid Hand, Ring, Wide Gap context╇ 16, 57 definition of╇ 6 example of the role of╇ 65–69 kinesic╇ 21, 33, 67, 95
simultaneous╇ 63, 95 successive╇ 63 selector of relevant analogical link╇ 28, 178 body part╇ 77–78 physical element╇ 119 verbal╇ 21, 115 vocal╇ 63, 67–68 See also communication channel, gestural sequencing co-speech gesture╇ 1, 3–6, 345 as co-verbal sign╇ 250–255 as pre-verbal sign╇ 256–266 different authors’ approaches to╇ 279–284, 345 how interpreted╇ 284 cutting╇ 12, 16 acts of╇ 320 examples of╇ 92, 120, 180 gestural and semantic variants of╇ 231–234, 322, 325 overview in figures╇ 183, 232, 233, 320, 322, 323, 325 schema of╇ 321–327, 352–353 D designation╇ 17, 146 abstract╇ 262 concrete╇ 220–222, 242 precedes qualification╇ 54, 55, 61–62, 345 self╇ 147, 157 direction of movement╇ 78, 81–83, 87, 89–90, 99 curved anticlockwise, regressive╇ 87–89, 99, 139, 141, 187, 188, 238, 240 clockwise, progressive╇ 87–89, 99, 141╇ straight-line╇ 88–89 code of╇ 107 See also orientation F facial expression as co-speech gesture╇ 6, 40 as kinesic context╇ 21–22 experimental film on╇ 4 in a kinesic ensemble╇ 199, 208, 267 feature relevant physical╇ 18, 22, 33, 124 basis of analogical link╇ 33, 119, 184, 231, 242, 347 definition of╇ 22, 33╇ in a configuration╇ 107, 119 vs. gestural component╇ 75, 76, 100
Subject index  semantic╇ 160–161 figurative locution concretization of╇ 181 gestural anticipation of╇ 269, 351 Finger Pinch╇ 105, 237, 257, 300 Fist╇ 46–48, 90, 300, 302, 303, 309 configuration╇ 90 code of╇ 105, 108 polysemous╇ 26–28 movement bireferential╇ 184–185, 237 polysemous polysign╇ 29 opening the╇ 331, 337–341 overview in figures╇ 19, 62, 105, 171, 219, 301 projection of╇ 218–220, 309 punch╇ 19, 170–173 form of body part╇ 90–92, 100 of movement╇ 81–89, 100 polysemy of a circular╇ 20, 21 See also direction Frame configuration╇ 105, 110, 111, 113–118 and the unconscious╇ 312 images conveyed by╇ 119 lowering the╇ 113, 114, 120–122 meaning of╇ 116–119 opening the╇ 331–334╇ overview in figures╇ 112, 118, 119, 122, 334 function conative╇ 42, 43 demarcative╇ 37–55, 63, 65, 67, 102 by change of movement╇ 37, 46 by repetition╇ 264 constant╇ 37, 55, 67 expressive╇ 42, 43, 95, 277 mutually helpful╇ 351 pedagogical╇ 253–254, 273, 277, 279, 284 phatic╇ 42, 43, 66–67, 269, 285, 344 referential╇ 42, 43, 55–71, 95, 102, 160 or ‘representational’╇ 42 predictive╇ 43, 285, 351 See also multifunctionality G gaze╇ 349 and head╇ 63, 95, 99 averted╇ 44, 236, 258 code of╇ 104, 108 function of╇ 308 sweeping╇ 31, 181, 234, 328 to abstract object╇ 220–221 to gesture╇ 307–308, 311, 333 forthcoming╇ 59, 68, 303–304
 Subject index to interlocutor╇ 305, 307, 311 upwards╇ 248 gestural anticipation of speech╇ 3, 248, 277, 281, 285, 308, 309 according to preverbal character of gesture╇ 269, 351 type of mental imagery╇ 268–269 as aid to verbalization╇ 258–263, 281, 351 tension-relaxation for listener╇ 263–266, 281, 351 hypothesis concerning╇ 267–269, 285, 351 See also function (predictive) gestural commentary╇ 250–252 gestural component╇ 6, 18, 19, 96 priority, as classifier╇ 75–100, 127 relevant╇ 76, 88, 89 samples sorted by╇ 110–115 secondary╇ 78, 81–89, 99–100 subcomponent╇ 163, 184, 190 substitution between╇ 144–153 vs. physical feature╇ 75, 76, 100 gestural referent anticipates verbal referent╇ 245, 267, 277–279, 281 complements verbal referent╇ 277, 311, 346 identifying╇ 104, 115–118, 120, 274, 276 vs. co-speech referent╇ 276, 346 See also abstract referent, gestural anticipation gestural referentiality as indicator of ideation╇ 353 bi-referentiality╇ 163, 184–188, 340 multi-referentiality╇ 188–190, 302 gestural sequencing, impact of╇ 32–33, 160, 169 on choice of variant╇ 158–160 gesture classed according to – motivation: complex gesture╇ 190–191, 238–239 definition of╇ 9 polysemous gesture╇ 163, 195, 241 as a polysign╇ 228, 232, 239, 241, 349 definition of╇ 9 explanation of╇ 26–28, 164–183 notion nuanced by╇ 224, 232–235, 327 polysemous polysign╇ 29, 191–194, 240 polysign╇ 28, 98, 123, 163, 183–191, 195, 220, 224, 237, 238, 241, 270 definition of╇ 9 types of╇ 184 – priority component: body-focused gesture╇ 78–81, 108 gesture in space╇ 78, 81–93, 99 curved gesture╇ 87–89, 99, 140
straight-line gesture╇ 81–87, 88, 89, 99 See also head gesture╇ – signification: deictic gesture╇ 17, 220–222 pantomimic gesture╇ 13–15 See also abstract referent, attitude gesture variant╇ 5, 9, 24–25, 30, 33–34, 124, 127 by substituting body part╇ 144–149, 162 directional axis╇ 134–135, 141 movement╇ 149–153, 162 plane of orientation╇ 86, 229, 231, 232 choice of╇ 128, 158–159, 162, 313 comparing, to elucidate╇ analogical link╇ 31, 123–124 a polysemy╇ 217–220 semantic features of a notion╇ 128, 160–161, 162 cumulative╇ 9, 24, 25, 30, 34, 127 of aggressiveness╇ 170, 173 allusion to madness╇ 79, 81 categorical character╇ 122 concrete designation╇ 220–221 decision╇ 121 perfection╇ 160–161 self-punishment╇ 172 semantic╇ 127, 144, 149, 153, 162 and polysemy╇ 220–224,╇ 232–235 stylistic╇ 127, 145, 148, 153, 162 See also cutting, negation, stop(ping), time gesture and notion analogical link between╇ 197–242 symbolic relation between╇ 23–30, 125–242 polysemy and polysign╇ 25–30, 163–195 variation╇ 25, 127–162 H hand configuration╇ 19, 105 and abstract object, type of╇ 338–339, 341 example╇ 90–91 opening a╇ 334, 338–339, 341 flat╇ 90 orientation of part of╇ 82–85, 93 representation╇ 11–16 right vs. left╇ 313–316, 340 head gesture╇ 78, 93–96 and hand gesture╇ 17, 93, 348 rotational movement╇ 93–96 how interpreted╇ 99 shake
Subject index  co-speech vs. speech substitute╇ 173, 175, 177, 217, 226 meaning╇ 31, 151, 173–177, 217, 226–227 tilt analogical link of╇ 227, 240 disambiguated by intonation╇ 252 examples of╇ 96–98, 223, 252 meaning╇ 240, 252
I Index finger overview in figures╇ 23, 79, 86, 105, 148, 169, 209, 216–217, 221, 225, 233 See also thumb, gesture variant isomorphism╇ 23, 25, 141, 166–170, 348 K kinesic segmentation into ideational units╇ 44–45 rhythmic-semantic groups╇ 46 words╇ 47–48 kinesic ensemble╇ 235, 267, 294 and analogical link(s)╇ 235–236 as cumulative variant╇ 18, 25, 30, 145 as stylistic variant╇ 145 definition of╇ 6, 18 example of╇ 18, 25, 235, 294, 307 See also unit (kinesic) kinogenesis of representations, hypothesis╇ 353 L Level Hand, transverse movement of the disambiguation of a word by╇ 255 meaning of╇ 178–181 motivation of╇ 181–183, 329 nuance contributed by╇ 232–235, 239 localization as component╇ 12, 18, 19, 75, 109, 119 as priority component╇ 78, 99, 108 gesture variant of╇ 146, 147, 157 symbolic (of lower and higher values)╇ 52 temporal╇ 129, 132 M meaning contextual definition of╇ 17, 284 identifying╇ 63–65 example╇ 65–69 motivation of╇ 5–7, 13, 17, 19, 326 conveyor, vehicle of╇ 75, 89, 124, 186, 188, 238, 311 element of╇ 30, 192, 241, 323, 324
essential, per gesture family╇ 283 interactive construction of╇ 269–273 shade of╇ 82, 127, 138, 141, 144, 162, 231–232, 234, 235 unit of╇ 277, 311 See also abstract referent, attitude, polysemy of, gesture variant (semantic) mental image(ry)╇ 267, 277, 279 and gestural anticipation╇ 268–269, 285 gesture as witness of╇ 293, 303 example╇ 303–307 metaphor╇ 295, 338 conceptual╇ xvii, 134 note 5, 294 definition of╇ 10 double╇ 294 gestural example of╇ alert╇ 271 boat╇ 263 dart╇ 257 death╇ 288 learning process╇ 294 nesting system╇ 262 parenthesis╇ 276 stem╇ 62 umbrella╇ 291 process of╇ 16 spatial╇ xvii, 143, 354 visual╇ xvi, xvii See also transfer mimesis╇ 344 gestural, an operation of abstraction╇ 15–16, 287, 288, 294, 320 in child development╇ 3, 267 vocal╇ 2 motivation╇ 6, 26, 30, 171, 346, 347, 348 and analogical link╇ 6, 26 of gesture variant╇ 92, 178, 324 physical origin of╇ 5 plural╇ 5, 163, 178–183, 195, 219, 282, 347, 348, 349 single╇ 5, 163, 282 See also analogical link, semantic derivation, polysemy movement apex of╇ 47, 49, 53, 54, 186 as priority component. See gesture in space (curved/straight-line) change of╇ 149–153, 162 code of (straight-line)╇ 107 form of╇ 81–88 how interpreted╇ 11 See also direction of movement multifunctionality of
 Subject index each communication channel╇ 42–43 gestural sign╇ 285 gesture╇ 67, 68, 95, 186, 260, 266, 273, 276, 351 multimodal communication. See communication N Narrow Gap configuration╇ 105, 136, 140, 151 negation╇ 31, 147, 148, 169, 173, 182, 228 and assertion╇ 227 double╇ 161, 175, 177, 195 examples of╇ 165, 174, 180, 226 gestural and semantic variants of╇ 25, 224–225, 228, 234, 242 overview in figures╇ 8, 31, 169, 183, 225, 233 See also refusal negative implication╇ 148, 208, 214 nonverbal communication. See communication O objection╇ 86, 146, 148, 165–166, 168, 189 correction╇ 86, 225 self-╇ 212 prohibition╇ 224, 225, 227 vocal╇ 227 rectification╇ 148, 149, 158 restriction╇ 166, 169, 208, 209, 252 gestural and semantic variants of╇ 222–224, 242 See also opposition Oblique Palm╇ 105, 106 opening the╇ 333–334 opposition╇ 12, 173 conflictual╇ 151, 153 countering someone╇ 296–298 logical╇ 151, 153 protective╇ 164–166 See also objection, refusal orientation╇ 19, 107 angle of╇ 168 body part╇ 92, 93 code of╇ 104–107, 109, 186 hand part╇ 83–85, 93 P Palm Forwards╇ 12, 16, 105–106, 225, 229, 271 as sign of opposition╇ 164–170, 173, 224, 226, 229, 230, 270 meaning of╇ 16, 17, 161, 164–166, 173, 206, 230 positive╇ 175–177 overview in figures╇ 105, 106, 166, 169, 176, 207
perceptual-motor experience╇ 4, 6, 280, 324, 354 plane╇ 81–84 and body part╇ 85, 86 configuration╇ 106 head movement╇ 93–96 in gestures of cutting╇ 231, 232, 234, 322, 323, 325 stopping╇ 229 stopping a process╇ 324 phono-gestural parallelism╇ 53 polysemy by plural motivation╇ 28, 178–183, 195 semantic derivation╇ 28, 164–166 of Fist╇ 26–27 fist punch╇ 173 Frame configuration╇ 116–118, 119 head shake╇ 31 head tilt╇ 223 lowering Rigid Hand╇ 91–92, 182 Palm Forwards╇ 164–166 position behind oneself╇ 125 Right Angle forwards╇ 192–194 Ring configuration╇ 19–21 shrug╇ 202 transverse movement of Level Hand╇ 178–183 proprioception╇ 39, 58, 344 proprioceptive percept╇ 325, 351 Pyramid configuration╇ 71, 90, 93, 105, 107, 108 meaning of╇ 151, 186, 310, 331, 335, 339 opening the╇ 332, 335–336 R recurrence kinesic╇ 50 prosodic╇ 49 See also choreography╇ reflex, gesture derived from╇ 4, 197, 227 avoidance╇ 25, 177, 199 evasion╇ 211–213, 217, 227, 318 expulsion of gas╇ 204–206 grasping╇ 269 recoiling╇ 213–214, 318 refusal╇ 177, 198 rejection╇ 199,╇ 203–206 self-protection╇ 16, 25, 166, 177, 199, 206–210, 217, 227, 270, 317 facial╇ 318
vomit╇ 25, 203–204 refusal╇ and semantic derivation 146, 155, 215–216 cumulative variant of╇ 25, 211 glottal symptom of╇ 214 physical, semantics of╇ 198–217 semantic variants of╇ 165, 169, 210–213, 216–217 See also negation Right Angle configuration╇ 91, 105, 112, 304 as limit╇ 194 meaning of forward movement of╇ 192–194 lowering╇ 113, 121–122, 159 Rigid Hand configuration╇ 105, 106, 112, 122, 255, 322, 323 meaning of lowering╇ 91–92, 120–122, 255, 322, 323 See also cutting Ring configuration╇ 19, 32, 105 bimanual╇ 108, 271 emblem vs. co-speech gesture╇ 21 inter-/intra-cultural polysemy of╇ 19, 22, 164, 237 meaning of╇ 20, 21, 75, 314 depending on facial expression╇ 21 opening the╇ 336–337 S schema action╇ 10–12 image╇ 288, 290, 340 mimetic╇ 3 of cutting╇ 321–327, 340, 352–353 explanatory opening╇ 327, 338, 339 preconceptual╇ 244, 281, 352 semantic derivation╇ 27, 28, 182, 195, 240, 241, 347 based on╇ an action schema╇ 10 directness╇ 179–180, 182, 183, 329 enclosing╇ 28 flat surface╇ 81, 183 handling╇ 28 quantity╇ 178 self-protective opposition╇ 164–166, 223 strength╇ 28, 302 totality╇ 179, 183, 328 by role reversal╇ 170–173, 215 contradictory╇ 173–177 in expression of refusal╇ 215–217 of negation╇ 177
Subject index  physico-╇ 166, 171, 173 semiotic analysis, benefits of╇ 279–282 semiotic process metaphoric and/or metonymic╇ 10, 11, 12 stages of╇ 12, 13 sign gestural analysis of╇ 17, 101–126, 235, 341, 343, 354 according to Saussurean principles╇ 352 steps of╇ 101 and verbal, interaction between╇ 244, 280, 281, 344, 352 asynchronous with verbal sign. See anticipation, gestural basis of. See analogical link, feature (relevant physical) characteristics of╇ 19–23 analogical╇ 21–22 contextual╇ 20 cultural╇ 19 isomorphic, analogical╇ 23 common to different gestures╇ 120, 124, 144, 347, 352 co-verbal╇ 250–254 often pre-verbal╇ 245, 285 definition of╇ 6 different, in one gesture╇ 9, 17, 19, 28, 57, 119, 175, 195, 213, 237, 238, 242, 252, 340, 348, 352 drawn from physical experience╇ 10–17, 352 from act to╇ 319–326 from reflex or symptom to╇ 199, 317–318 function of. See function, (predictive, referential) in discourse╇ 17–34 key concepts related to╇ 9–33 motivation of╇ 346 pre-verbal╇ 256–269 function of╇ 285 specific semiotic properties of╇ 281, 352 synchronous with idea╇ 33, 340 nonverbal characteristics of╇ 40–42, 345 verbal characteristics of╇ 40–42, 345 See also polysign sign language╇ 58–59, 102, 142–143, 344 stop(ping)╇ 12, 165 gestural and semantic variants of╇ 228–230, 232, 234 glottal╇ 208 a process╇ 182, 240, 323–324, 325 request to╇ 86, 146, 148, 158, 169, 176
 Subject index subcomponent. See gestural component subunit╇ 53, 183 and analogical link╇ 198, 238, 242, 349 semantic╇ 36, 53, 65, 68 symmetry╇ 87, 88, 168 and choice╇ 96 opposition 133, 135 axis of bodily╇ 61, 231, 278, 316, 324, 327 vs. laterality, coding╇ 104, 108 T thumb specific character of╇ 154–155 vs. index finger╇ 156–158 time╇ 5 anteriority╇ 132–134 distant╇ 139 axis of╇ 60 continuity (with/without change)╇ 139, 141, 149 course of╇ 137–140 cultural differences╇ 142–144 duration╇ 135–138 event with respect to the present moment╇ 128–131 with respect to a given moment╇ 128, 132–135 future╇ 130 going back in╇ 238 limit╇ 233 measurement of╇ 135–137 past╇ 129–130 distant╇ 130 recent╇ 129 perpetuity╇ 139 posteriority╇ 132–134 present╇ 130–131 regressive unfolding╇ 139–141 repetition, ‘a second time’╇ 138–139 span of╇ 140 totality╇ 150, 179, 228, 327 and formulaic expressions of agreement╇ 175, 177 as nuance╇ 234, 235, 239, 330 complete analogical link of╇ 31, 123, 328 gesture variants of╇ 31, 33, 175, 234 visual schema of╇ 327
complete vs. united╇ 150, 234, 328 overview in figures╇ 31, 70, 152, 183, 233, 259 semantic derivation╇ 150, 161, 328 united╇ 70, 259 transfer metaphoric╇ 10, 326 physical╇ 16╇ from hand to mouth╇ 318 from lower to upper body 15, 79 of axis╇ 132, 134, 135, 308 of body part. See gesture variant of spatial reference╇ 135 See also gesture variant semantic to abstract domain╇ 16, 262 to another semantic domain╇ 217 to psychological domain╇ 199 to temporal domain╇ 181 See also semantic derivation U unit gestural╇ and ‘gesture unit’╇ 54 note 9 identifying╇ 17–19, 53–55 gestural and verbal, types of correlation╇ 246–250, 256, 351 ideational╇ 44–47 kinesic╇ 18, 198 and analogical link╇ 198, 238, 242 semantic and temporal relations╇ 246–250 See also subunit utterance act cognitive function of gesture in╇ 285 utterance process gestural anticipation in╇ 269 involvement of interlocutor in╇ 262, 268,281 opposing types of sign in╇ 5, 269–273, 280 V variation and polysemy, interaction between╇ 30–33 elucidating polysemy by variants╇ 217–220 semantic variant due to the gesture’s polysemy╇ 220–224 W Wide Gap╇ 62, 105, 298