Gestures of the abstract

IF 0.5 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Pragmatics & Cognition Pub Date : 2017-12-31 DOI:10.1075/PC.17006.PAR
Fey Parrill, Kashmiri Stec
{"title":"Gestures of the abstract","authors":"Fey Parrill, Kashmiri Stec","doi":"10.1075/PC.17006.PAR","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Speakers perform manual gestures in the physical space nearest them, called gesture space . We used a controlled elicitation task to explore whether speakers use gesture space in a consistent way (assign spaces to ideas and use those spaces for those ideas) and whether they use space in a contrastive way (assign different spaces to different ideas when using contrastive speech) when talking about abstract referents. Participants answered two questions designed to elicit contrastive, abstract discourse. We investigated manual gesture behavior. Gesture hand, location on the horizontal axis, and referent in corresponding speech were coded. We also coded contrast in speech. Participants’ overall tendency to use the same hand ( t (17) = 13.12, p  = .001, 95% CI [.31, .43], d  = 2.53) and same location ( t (17) = 7.47, p  = .001, 95% CI [.27, .47], d  = 1.69) when referring to an entity was higher than expected frequency. When comparing pairs of gestures produced with contrastive speech to pairs of gestures produced with non-contrastive speech, we found a greater tendency to produce gestures with different hands for contrastive speech: ( t (17) = 4.19, p  = .001, 95% CI [.27, .82], d  = 1.42). We did not find associations between dominant side and positive concepts or between left, center, and right space and past, present, and future, respectively, as predicted by previous studies. Taken together, our findings suggest that speakers do produce spatially consistent and contrastive gestures for abstract as well as concrete referents. They may be using spatial resources to assist with abstract thinking, and/or to help interlocutors with reference tracking. Our findings also highlight the complexity of predicting gesture hand and location, which appears to be the outcome of many competing variables.","PeriodicalId":45741,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatics & Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/PC.17006.PAR","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatics & Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/PC.17006.PAR","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Speakers perform manual gestures in the physical space nearest them, called gesture space . We used a controlled elicitation task to explore whether speakers use gesture space in a consistent way (assign spaces to ideas and use those spaces for those ideas) and whether they use space in a contrastive way (assign different spaces to different ideas when using contrastive speech) when talking about abstract referents. Participants answered two questions designed to elicit contrastive, abstract discourse. We investigated manual gesture behavior. Gesture hand, location on the horizontal axis, and referent in corresponding speech were coded. We also coded contrast in speech. Participants’ overall tendency to use the same hand ( t (17) = 13.12, p  = .001, 95% CI [.31, .43], d  = 2.53) and same location ( t (17) = 7.47, p  = .001, 95% CI [.27, .47], d  = 1.69) when referring to an entity was higher than expected frequency. When comparing pairs of gestures produced with contrastive speech to pairs of gestures produced with non-contrastive speech, we found a greater tendency to produce gestures with different hands for contrastive speech: ( t (17) = 4.19, p  = .001, 95% CI [.27, .82], d  = 1.42). We did not find associations between dominant side and positive concepts or between left, center, and right space and past, present, and future, respectively, as predicted by previous studies. Taken together, our findings suggest that speakers do produce spatially consistent and contrastive gestures for abstract as well as concrete referents. They may be using spatial resources to assist with abstract thinking, and/or to help interlocutors with reference tracking. Our findings also highlight the complexity of predicting gesture hand and location, which appears to be the outcome of many competing variables.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
抽象的手势
扬声器在离他们最近的物理空间(称为手势空间)中进行手动手势。我们使用受控启发任务来探索说话者在谈论抽象指称时是否以一致的方式使用手势空间(为想法分配空间,并为这些想法使用这些空间),以及他们是否以对比的方式使用空间(在使用对比语言时为不同的想法分配不同的空间)。参与者回答了两个旨在引出对比抽象话语的问题。我们调查了手动手势行为。手势手、横轴上的位置和相应语音中的指代被编码。我们还对语音中的对比度进行了编码。参与者使用同一只手的总体倾向(t(17) = 13.12,p = .001,95%置信区间[0.31,.43],d = 2.53)和相同位置(t(17) = 7.47,p = .001,95%置信区间[0.27,.47],d = 1.69)的频率高于预期频率。当将对比语音产生的成对手势与非对比语音产生对手势进行比较时,我们发现在对比语音中,用不同的手产生手势的趋势更大:(t(17) = 4.19,p = .001,95%置信区间[0.27,.82],d = 1.42)。我们没有发现优势侧与积极概念之间的关联,也没有发现左、中、右空间与过去、现在和未来之间的关联。总之,我们的研究结果表明,说话者确实对抽象和具体的指称产生了空间一致和对比的手势。他们可能正在使用空间资源来帮助抽象思维,和/或帮助对话者进行参考追踪。我们的研究结果还强调了预测手势和位置的复杂性,这似乎是许多竞争变量的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Recalling presupposed information Too big to bind? Non-standard uses of hybrid evaluatives and the echoic view Linguistic and pragmatic ways of committing oneself The annotative dual-clause juxtaposition construction in Japanese
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1