Beyond Foreigner Talk: Hand gestures in L1–L2 interaction

This paper challenges the common belief that first language (L1) speakers simplify their language when communicating with second language (L2) users, which is captured in Charles Ferguson’s ‘Foreigner Talk’ hypothesis. Academic research has long suggested that, along with simplified vocabulary and syntax, L1 speakers use more illustrative and larger gestures to accommodate L2 addressees. Since this stereotype remains empirically unverified, we analyzed L1 gesture production in two video corpora, implementing automated motion-tracking techniques to measure gesture size. We found that L1 speakers produced larger gestures when describing a picture to an L2 addressee than to an L1 addressee, whereas this difference did not occur during free conversation. In both communicative tasks, however, they used more deictic gestures and organized their gesture space to structure the interaction. In sum, gesture qualifies as a versatile resource in L1–L2 interaction, which is tailored to the conversational task at hand.

Keywords: Foreigner Talk, linguistic simplification, L2 accommodation, motion-tracking, gesture size

Article outline

Introduction
- Revisiting Ferguson’s question
- Hand gesture
- Gesture in L1–L2 interaction
- The present study
Methods
- Communicative tasks
- Recordings
  - Picture descriptions (PD)
  - Free conversations (FC)
- Annotation
- Motion tracking
- Size measures
Analysis
- Frequency
- Semantics
- Size
- Illustrations
Discussion
Conclusion
Notes
References
References

References (65)

References

Adams, T. W. (1998). Gesture in foreigner talk. University of Pennsylvania. [URL]

Bergmann, K., Cordero Rull, M. & Lugrin, B. (2018). A pilot study on Adaptive Gesture Use in interaction with non-native listeners. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Multimodal Analyses Enabling Artificial Agents in Human-Machine Interaction, pp. 26–32. ACM.

Bressem, J. & Ladewig, S. H. (2011). Rethinking gesture phases: Articulatory features of gestural movement? Semiotica, 1841, 53–91.

Bressem, J., Ladewig, S. H. & Müller, C. (2013). Linguistic annotation system for gestures. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D. & Tessendorf, S. (Eds.), Body, language, communication: An international handbook in multimodality and interaction, Vol. 11, pp. 1098–1124. De Gruyter Mouton.

Calbris, G. (2011). Elements of meaning in gesture. John Benjamins.

Calbris, G., & Copple, M. (2024). The gestural sign: A concrete and reasoned analysis of co-speech gesture. In Cienki, A. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of gesture studies, pp. 217–248. Cambridge University Press.

Cao, Z., Simon, T., Wei, S.-E., & Sheikh, Y. (2017). Realtime multi-person 2D pose estimation using part affinity fields. arXiv.

Cienki, A. (2017). Analysing metaphor in gesture: A set of metaphor identification guidelines for gesture (MIG-G). In Semino, E. & Demjén, Z. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language, pp. 137–147. Routledge.

(2022). The study of gesture in cognitive linguistics: How it could inform and inspire other research in cognitive science. WIREs Cognitive Science, 13(6), 1–17.

(2024). Variable embodiment of stance-taking and footing in simultaneous interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology, 151, 1–12.

Close, B., Zurbenko, I., & Mingzen, S. (2020). Kza: Kolmogorov-Zurbenko adaptive filters [Computer software]. [URL]

Cooperrider, K., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2017). When gesture becomes analogy. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 719–737.

Dahl, D. (1981). The role of experience in speech modifications for second language learners. Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language, 7(2), 78–93.

Derwing, T. M. (1987). Individual differences in foreigner talk: Factors in successful communication with non-native speakers [Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta.]

Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). Why the dichotomy ‘L1 versus LX user’ is better than ‘native versus non-native speaker.’ Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 236–240.

Duranti, A. (2011). Linguistic anthropology: The study of language as a non-neutral medium. In Mesthrie, E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics, pp. 28–46. Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.

Fafchamps, S. (2019). Multimodale foreigner talk: Hoe moedertaalsprekers hun handgebaren aanpassen in gesprekken met vreemdetaalsprekers. Liège Université.

Ferguson, C. A. (1971). Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In Hymes, D. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages, pp. 141–150. Cambridge University Press.

(1975). Toward a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics, 17(1), 1–14.

(1981). ‘Foreigner talk’ as the name of a simplified register. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 281, 9–18.

Fischer, K. (2016). Designing speech for a recipient: The roles of partner modeling, alignment and feedback in so-called “simplified registers”. John Benjamins.

Freed, B. F. (1978). Foreigner talk: A study of speech adjustments made by native speakers in English in conversation with non-native speakers [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.]

(1981). Foreigner talk, baby talk, native talk. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 281, 19–40.

Fricke, E. (2014). Deixis, gesture, and embodiment from a linguistic point of view. In Müller, C., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.), Body — language — communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, Vol. 21, pp. 1803–1823. De Gruyter Mouton.

Gamer, M., Lemon, J., & Fellows, I. P. S. (2019). Irr: Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement (Version 0.84.1) [Computer software].

Gullberg, M. (2013). So you think gestures are compensatory? Reflections based on child and adult learner data. In Mattsson, A. F. & Norrby, C. (Eds.), Language acquisition and use in multilingual contexts, pp. 39–49. Lund University.

Harrison, S. (2018). The impulse to gesture: Where language, minds, and bodies intersect. Cambridge University Press.

Hu, M. (2022). When native speakers meet non-native speakers: A case study of foreigner talk. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(4), 790–797.

Jehoul, A., Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (2017). The shrug as marker of obviousness: Corpus evidence from Dutch face-to-face conversations. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(1), 1–9.

Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press.

Ladewig, S. (2014). Recurrent gestures. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., & Tessendorf, S. (Eds.), Body, language, communication: An international handbook in multimodality and interaction, Vol. 21, pp. 1098–1124. De Gruyter Mouton.

(2024). Recurrent gestures: Cultural, individual, and linguistic dimensions of meaning-making. In Cienki, A. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of gesture studies, pp. 32–55. Cambridge University Press.

Lausberg, H. (2019). The NEUROGES® analysis system for nonverbal behavior and gesture: The complete research coding manual including an interactive video learning tool and coding template. Peter Lang.

Lemmens, M. (2025). Idiogests: Gestural idiolects reveal variation in discursive focus. Lege artis Language yesterday, today, tomorrow, 10(1). 54–69. [URL].

Lempert, M. (2011). Barack Obama, being sharp: Indexical order in the pragmatics of precision-grip gesture. Gesture, 11(3), 241–270.

Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.]

McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press. 81-82.

McNeill, D., Quek, F., McCullough, K.-E., Duncan, S. D., Furuyama, N., Bryll, R., Furuyama, N., & Ansari, R. (2001). Catchments, prosody and discourse. Gesture, 1(1), 9–33.

McNeill, D. (2024). The Growth Point. In Cienki, A. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of gesture studies, pp. 477–500. Cambridge University Press.

Mittelberg, I. (2019). Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates forms, functions, and schematic patterns in gesture. Frontiers in Psychology, 101, 254.

Müller, C. (2017). How recurrent gestures mean: Conventionalized contexts-of-use and embodied motivation. Gesture, 16(2), 277–304.

Müller, C., & Tag, S. (2010). The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction. Cognitive Semiotics, 6(1), 85–120.

Petrou, M., & Dragojevic, M. (2023). “Where are you from?” Language attitudes and (non)accommodation during native–nonnative speaker interactions in Germany. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 43(3), 353–375.

Prové, V., & Feyaerts, K. (2022). Pitch metaphors and the body in singing classes. CogniTextes. Revue de l’Association française de linguistique cognitive, 221.

Prové, V. (2024). Beyond Foreigner Talk. Multimodal repertoires in L1–L2 interaction. Unpublished thesis. [URL]

R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]

Ravid, D., Olshtain, E., & Ze’elon, R. (2003). Gradeschoolers’ linguistic and pragmatic speech adaptation to native and non-native interlocution. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(1), 71–99.

Roche, J. (1989). Xenolekte: Struktur und Variation im Deutsch gegenüber Ausländern. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Rohrer, P., Vilà-Giménez, I., Florit-Pons, J., Gibert, N., Ren, P., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Prieto, P., & Glenda. (2021). The MultiModal MultiDimensional (M3D) labeling system [Version 1]. Open Science Framework.

. (2023). The MultiModal MultiDimensional (M3D) labeling system [Version 1]. Open Science Framework.

Smith, S. W., Scholnick, N., Crutcher, A., Simeone, M. & Smith, W. R. (1991). Foreigner talk revisited: Limits on accommodation to nonfluent speakers. In Blommaert, J. & Verschueren, J. (Eds.), Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 6(3), pp. 173–186. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Snow, C. E., Eeden, R., & Muysken, P. (1981). The interactional origins of foreigner talk: Municipal employees and foreign workers. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 281, 81–91.

Stukenbrock, A. (2014). Pointing to an ‘empty’ space: Deixis am Phantasma in face-to-face interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 741, 70–93.

Tellier, M., Stam, G., & Ghio, A. (2021). Handling language: How future language teachers adapt their gestures to their interlocutor. Gesture, 20(1), 30–62.

Tweissi, A. (1990). Evidence for the universality of language simplification: ‘Foreigner Talk.’ In Eid, M. & McCarthy, J. (Eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, 2961. John Benjamins.

Uzawa, K. 1986. Foreigner Talk in Japanese: speech adjustments of native speakers with intermediate and advanced non-native speakers. Unpublished thesis. University of British Columbia.

Wagner, J. (1996). Foreign language acquisition through interaction: A critical review of research on conversational adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 215–235.

Warren-Leubecker, A., & Bohannon, J. N. (1982). The effects of expectation and feedback on speech to foreigners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11(3), 207–215.

Winter, B. (2013). Linear models and linear mixed effects models in R with linguistic applications. arXiv Preprint. [URL]

Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A., & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Gangemi, A., Maegaard, B., Mariani, J., Odijk, J., Tapias, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 1556–1559. European Language Resources Association.

Calbris, G. (2011). Elements of meaning in gesture. John Benjamins. 241.

Cienki, A. (2022). The study of gesture in cognitive linguistics: How it could inform and inspire other research in cognitive science. WIREs Cognitive Science, 13(6).

Ladewig, S. (2024). Recurrent gestures: Cultural, individual, and linguistic dimensions of meaning-making. In A. Cienki (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of gesture studies (pp. 32–55). Cambridge University Press.

Mittelberg, I. (2019). Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates forms, functions, and schematic patterns in gesture. Frontiers in Psychology, 101, 254.