1932

Abstract

Current formal semantic theories aim at capturing gestural semantic contributions and in particular their interplay with the semantics that stems from cooccurring speech. To grasp how gesture contributes meaning and interacts with speech, the information status of gesture is of prime importance. This article gives an overview of the different conceptions of the information status of gestures that have been put forth and discusses the empirical predictions and theoretical consequences that arise from the respective theories.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-063057
2024-01-16
2024-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/10/1/annurev-linguistics-022421-063057.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-063057&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ahn D. 2017. Definite and demonstrative descriptions: a micro-typology. Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI MY Erlewine 33–48. Cambridge, MA: MIT Work. Pap. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahn D. 2019. THAT thesis: a competition mechanism for anaphoric expressions PhD Thesis Harvard Univ. Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderbois S, Brasoveanu A, Henderson R. 2013. At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse. J. Semant. 32:193–138
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnes K, Ebert C 2023. The information status of iconic enrichments: modelling gradient at-issueness. Theor. Linguist 49:3–4167–223
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergmann K, Damm O, Freigang F, Fröhlich C, Hahn F et al. 2014. Documentation – Sagaland Documentation Manual Bielefeld Univ. Bielefeld, Ger.:
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Davidson K. 2015. Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguist. Philos. 38:477–520
    [Google Scholar]
  7. de Ruiter JP. 2000. The production of gesture and speech. Language and Gesture D McNeill 284–311. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Diessel H. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cogn. Linguist. 17:463–89
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Donnellan KS. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philos. Rev. 75:3281–304
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ebert C. 2017. Handling information from different dimensions (with special attention on gesture versus speech) Handout of a talk given at the Institut für Linguistik Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Ger.: Jan. 10
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ebert C, Ebert C. 2014. Gestures, demonstratives, and the attributive/referential distinction Handout of a talk given at Semantics and Philosophy in Europe (SPE 7) Berlin, Ger.: June 25–28
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ebert C, Ebert C, Hörnig R 2020. Demonstratives as dimension shifters. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 24 M Franke, N Kompa, M Liu, J Mueller, J Schwab 161–78. Osnabrück/Berlin, Ger.: Osnabrück Univ./Humboldt Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ebert C, Evert S, Wilmes K. 2011. Focus marking via gestures. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15 I Reich, E Horch, D Pauly 193–208. Saarbrücken, Ger.: Univ. Saarlandes
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ebert C, Hinterwimmer S. 2022. Free indirect discourse meets character viewpoint gestures. Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2020: Linguistic Theory Enriched by Experimental Data333–49. Tübingen, Ger.: Univ. Tübingen
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ebert C, Konietzko A, Weskott T 2021. Recovering gestured and spoken material in VP ellipsis and pro-forms. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 25 P Grosz, L Martí, H Pearson, Y Sudo, S Zobel 256–66. London, UK: Univ. Coll. London/Queen Mary Univ. London
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ebert C, Pirillo G, Walter S. 2022. The role of gesture-speech alignment for gesture interpretation. Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2020 R Hörnig, S von Wietersheim, A Konietzko, S Featherston 65–77. Tübingen, Ger.: Univ. Tübingen
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Emonds JE. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax New York, NY: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Esipova M. 2018. Focus on what's not at issue: gestures, presuppositions, appositives under contrastive focus. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, Vol. 1 U Sauerland, S Solt 385–402. Berlin, Ger.: Leibniz Cent. Gen. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Esipova M. 2019a. Composition and projection in speech and gesture PhD Thesis N.Y. Univ. New York, NY:
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Esipova M 2019b. Towards a uniform super-linguistic theory of projection. Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium JJ Schlöder, D McHugh, F Roelofsen 553–62. Amsterdam, Neth.: ILLC
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Farkas DF, Bruce KB. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. J. Semant. 27:181–118
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fiengo R, May R. 1994. Indices and Identity Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fricke E. 2012. Grammatik multimodal: wie wörter und gesten zusammenwirken Berlin, Ger.: De Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Giorgolo G. 2010. Space and time in our hands PhD Thesis Univ. Utrecht Utrecht, Neth.:
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldin-Meadow S, Brentari D. 2017. Gesture, sign, and language: the coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behav. Brain Sci. 40:e46
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Grice HP 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3 Speech Acts P Cole, JL Morgan 43–58. New York, NY: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gutzmann D. 2015. Use-Conditional Meaning: Studies in Multidimensional Semantics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Harris JA, Potts C. 2009. Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguist. Philos. 32:6523–52
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Harrison S. 2018. The Impulse to Gesture: Where Language, Minds, and Bodies Intersect Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Heim I. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics114–25. Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hunter J. 2019. Relating gesture to speech: reflections on the role of conditional presuppositions. Linguist. Philos. 42:4317–32
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jannedy S, Mendoza-Denton N. 2005. Structuring information through gesture and intonation. Interdiscip. Stud. Inform. Struct. 3:199–244
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kaplan D. 1989. Demonstratives: an essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. Themes from Kaplan J Almog, J Perry, H Wettstein 481–563. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Keevallik L. 2013. The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 46:11–21
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kendon A. 1980. Gesticulation and speech: two aspects of the process of utterance. The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication MR Key 207–27. The Hague, Neth.: Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kendon A. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kita S. 2009. Cross-cultural variation of speech-accompanying gesture: a review. Lang. Cogn. Process. 24:2145–67
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kita S, Özyürek A. 2003. What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. J. Mem. Lang. 48:116–32
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Koev T. 2013. Apposition and the structure of discourse PhD Thesis Rutgers Univ. New Brunswick, NJ:
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kopp S, Tepper P, Cassell J. 2004. Towards integrated microplanning of language and iconic gesture for multimodal output. Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI'04)97–104. New York, NY: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Krifka M. 2001. Non-Novel Indefinites in Adverbial Quantification Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kripke S. 1977. Speaker's reference and semantic reference. Midwest Stud. Philos. 13:255–76
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ladewig SH. 2014. Recurrent gestures. See Müeller et al. 2014 1558–74
  44. Ladewig SH. 2020. Integrating Gestures: The Dimension of Multimodality in Cognitive Grammar Berlin, Ger.: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Lascarides A, Stone M. 2009. A formal semantic analysis of gesture. J. Semant. 26:4393–449
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Liddell SK. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Loehr D. 2004. Gesture and intonation PhD Thesis Georgetown Univ. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lücking A. 2013. Ikonische gesten: grundzüge einer linguistischen theorie Berlin, Ger: De Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lücking A, Bergmann K, Hahn F, Kopp S, Rieser H. 2013. Data-based analysis of speech and gesture: the Bielefeld Speech and Gesture Alignment corpus (SaGA) and its applications. J. Multimodal User Interfaces 7:1–25–18
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Lücking A, Pfeiffer T, Rieser H. 2015. Pointing and reference reconsidered. J. Pragmat. 77:56–79
    [Google Scholar]
  51. McCawley JD. 1998. The Syntactic Phenomena of English Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  52. McNeill D. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. McNeill D. 2005. Gesture and Thought Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Müller C. 2004. The palm-up-open-hand. A case of a gesture family?. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gestures: Proceedings of the Berlin Conference April 1998 C Müller, R Posner 233–56. Berlin, Ger.: Weidler
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke E, Ladewig S, McNeill D, Bressem J, eds. 2014. Body-Language-Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, Vol. 2 Berlin, Ger.: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Müller C, Tag S. 2010. The dynamics of metaphor: foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction. Cogn. Semiot. 6:85–120
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Nouwen R 2014. A note on the projection of appositives. Formal Approaches to Semantics and Pragmatics: Japanese and Beyond E McCready, K Yabushita, K Yoshimoto 205–22. Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Nunberg G. 1993. Indexicality and deixis. Linguist. Philos. 16:1–43
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Özçaliskan Ş, Goldin-Meadow S. 2005. Gesture is at the cutting edge of early language development. Cognition 96:B101–13
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Pearson H. 2010. A modification of the ``Hey, Wait a Minute'' test. Snippets 22:7–8
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Pfau R 2011. A point well taken. Deaf Around the World: The Impact of Language G Mathur, DJ Napoli 144–63. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Pittenger RE, Hockett CF, Danehy JJ. 1960. The First Five Minutes: A Sample of Microscopic Interview Ithaca, NY: P. Martineau
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Potts C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Potts C 2012. Conventional implicature and expressive content. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3 C Maienborn, K von Heusinger, P Portner 2516–36. Berlin, Ger.: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Potts C, Alonso-Ovalle L, Asudeh A, Bhatt R, Cable S et al. 2009. Expressives and identity conditions. Linguist. Inq. 40:2356–66
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Rieser H 2009. On factoring out a gesture typology from the Bielefeld Speech-and-Gesture-Alignment Corpus (SAGA). Gesture in Embodied Communication and Human-Computer Interaction S Kopp, I Wachsmuth 47–60. Berlin/Heidelberg, Ger.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Rieser H, Lawler I. 2020. Multi-modal meaning: an empirically-founded process algebra approach. Semant. Pragmat. 13:8
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Sæbø KJ. 2011. Appositives in modal contexts. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15 I Reich, E Horch, D Pauly 79–100. Saarbrücken, Ger.: Univ. Saarlandes
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sailor C, Colasanti V. 2020. Co-speech gestures under ellipsis: a first look Handout from the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America New Orleans, LA: Jan. 2–5
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Salem M, Kopp S, Wachsmuth I, Rohlfing K, Joublin F. 2012. Generation and evaluation of communicative robot gesture. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 4:201–17
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Schlenker P. 2014. Iconic features. Nat. Lang. Semant. 22:4299–356
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Schlenker P. 2015. Gestural cosuppositions within the transparency theory. Linguist. Inq. 50:4873–84
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Schlenker P. 2018. Gesture projection and cosuppositions. Linguist. Philos. 41:3295–365
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Schlenker P. 2019a. Gestural semantics. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 37:735–84
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Schlenker P. 2019b. What is super semantics?. Philos. Perspect. 32:365–453
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Schlenker P. 2020. Gestural grammar. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 38:3887–936
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Schlenker P, Chemla E. 2018. Gestural agreement. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 36:2587–625
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Shanon B. 1976. On the two kinds of presupposition in natural language. Found. Lang. 14:2247–49
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Stalnaker R. 2002. Common ground. Linguist. Philos. 25:701–21
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Syrett K, Koev T. 2014. Experimental evidence for the truth conditional contribution and shifting information status of appositives. J. Semant. 32:3525–77
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Tieu L, Pasternak R, Schlenker P, Chemla E. 2017. Co-speech gesture projection: evidence from truth-value judgment and picture selection tasks. Glossa 2:1102
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Tieu L, Pasternak R, Schlenker P, Chemla E. 2018. Co-speech gesture projection: evidence from inferential judgments. Glossa 3:1109
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Tomasello M. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Tonhauser J 2012. Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on the Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas (SULA 6) E Bogal-Allbritten 239–54. Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Umbach C, Gust H. 2014. Similarity demonstratives. Lingua 149:74–93
    [Google Scholar]
  86. von Fintel K. 2004. Would you believe it? The King of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. Descriptions and Beyond M Reimer, A Bezuidenhout 315–41. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-063057
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-063057
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error