Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 24:1 (2017) ► pp.33–61

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Gestures of the abstract

Do speakers use space consistently and contrastively when gesturing about abstract concepts?

 | Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States
 | Bang & Olufsen
Published online: 19 January 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17006.par
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Procedure
    • 2.3Coding
    • 2.4Semantic coding
    • 2.5Contrast coding
    • 2.6Reliability
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1General description of the data
    • 3.2Consistency analysis
      • 3.2.1Overall consistency
      • 3.2.2Consistency in temporally sequential gestures
    • 3.3Contrast analysis
    • 3.4Spatial organization analysis
      • 3.4.1Good and dominant side
      • 3.4.2 time is space analysis
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (48)
References
Beattie, Geoffrey & Heather Shovelton. 2002. An experimental investigation of some properties of individual iconic gestures that mediate their communicative power. British Journal of Psychology 931. 179–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Why the spontaneous images created by the hands during talk can help make TV advertisements more effective. British Journal of Psychology 96(1). 21–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavelas, Janet Beavin & Nichole Chovil. 2000. Visible acts of meaning: An integrated message model of language in face-to-face dialogue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19(25). 163–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beer, Randall. 2000. Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(3). 91–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 431. 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel & Roberto Bottini. 2014. Mirror reading can reverse the flow of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143(2). 473–479. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel & Tania Henetz. 2012. Handedness shapes children’s abstract concepts. Cognitive Science 361. 359–372. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel & Kyle Jasmin. 2010. Good and bad in the hands of politicians: Spontaneous gestures during positive and negative speech. PLoS ONE 5(7). e11805. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chui, Kawai. 2011. Conceptual metaphors in gesture. Cognitive Linguistics 22(3). 437–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan. 1998. Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, 189–204. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan & Cornelia Müller (eds.). 2008. Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Pointing and placing. In Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 243–268. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooperrider, Kensy & Rafael Núñez. 2009. Across time, across the body. Gesture 9(2). 181–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Han Sloetjes. 2008. Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. In Onno Crasborn, Thomas Hanke, Eleni Efthimiou, Inge Zwitserlood & Ernst Thoutenhoofd (eds.), Construction and exploitation of sign language corpora: 3rd workshop on the representation and processing of sign languages, 39–43. Paris: ELDA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 2000. The treatment of contrasts in interaction. In Elizabeth Cooper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 283–312. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gullberg, Marianne & Sotaro Kita. 2009. Attention to speech-accompanying gestures: Eye movements and information uptake. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 331. 251–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gunter, Thomas C., J. E. Douglas Weinbrenner & Henning Holle. 2015. Inconsistent use of gesture space during abstract pointing impairs language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 6(80). 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinnell, Jennifer & Sally Rice. 2016. “On the one hand…”: Opposition and optionality in the embodied marking of stance in North American English. Paper presented at the International Society for Gesture Studies, Paris.
Hostetter, Autumn B. & Martha W. Alibali. 2008. Visible embodiment: Gesture as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15(3). 495–514. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro (ed.). 2003. Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kok, Kasper, Kirsten Bergmann, Alan Cienki & Stefan Kopp. 2016. Mapping out the multifunctionality of speakers’ gestures. Gesture 15(1). 37–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. The neuroscience of metaphoric gestures: Why they exist. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and gesture, 283–289. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Le Guen, Oliver & Lorena I. Pool Balam. 2012. No metaphorical timeline in gesture and cognition among Yucatec Mayas. Frontiers in Psychology 31. 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matlock, Teenie, Kevin J. Holmes, Mahesh Srinivasan & Michael Ramscar. 2011. Even abstract motion influences the understanding of time. Metaphor and Symbol 261. 260–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2000. Language and gesture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Unexpected metaphors. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and gesture, 155–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, David, & Laura Pedelty. 1995. Right brain and gesture. In Karen Emmorey & Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture and space, 63–85. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Cornelia. 2004. Metaphors: Dead and alive, sleeping and waking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. What gestures reveal about the nature of metaphor. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and gesture, 219–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuñez, Rafael & Eve E. Sweetser. 2006. With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science 30(5). 401–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Özyürek, Asli. 2002. Do speakers design their cospeech gestures for their addressees? The effects of addressee location on representational gestures. Journal of Memory & Language 461. 688–704. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parrill, Fey. 2007. Metagesture: An analysis of theoretical discourse about multimodal language. In Susan D. Duncan, Justine Cassell & Elena T. Levy (eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language, 83–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela & Asli Özyürek. 2015. Visible cohesion: A comparison of reference tracking in sign, speech, and co-speech gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science 71. 36–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ping, Raedy & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2010. Gesturing saves cognitive resources when talking about nonpresent objects. Cognitive Science 341. 602–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Priesters, Matthias. 2013. Functional patterns in gesture space. Institut für Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft der RWTH Aachen. Thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
So, Wing Chee, Sotaro Kita & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2009. Using the hands to identify who does what to whom: Gesture and speech go hand-in-hand. Cognitive Science 331. 115–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stec, Kashmiri & Mike Huiskes. 2014. Co-constructing referential space in multimodal narratives. Cognitive Semiotics 7(1). 31–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1992. English metaphors for language: Motivations, conventions, and creativity. Poetics Today 13(4). 705–724. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1998. Regular metaphoricity in gesture: Bodily-based models of speech interaction. Actes du 16 Congres International des Linguistes 51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Gelder, Tim. 1998. The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 211. 615–665. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Khasbage, Yash, Daniel Alcaraz Carrión, Jennifer Hinnell, Frankie Robertson, Karan Singla, Peter Uhrig & Mark Turner
2024. The Red Hen Anonymizer and the Red Hen Protocol for de-identifying audiovisual recordings. Linguistics Vanguard 9:1 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Opazo, Paloma, Alan Cienki, Bert Oben & Geert Brône
2024. Gesture alignment in teacher–student interaction: a study concerning office hour consultations using English as the lingua franca. Frontiers in Communication 9 DOI logo
Zhang, Icy (Yunyi), Tina Izad & Erica A. Cartmill
2024. Embodying Similarity and Difference: The Effect of Listing and Contrasting Gestures During U.S. Political Speech. Cognitive Science 48:3 DOI logo
Emir Özder, Levent, Demet Özer & Tilbe Göksun
2023. Gesture use in L1-Turkish and L2-English: Evidence from emotional narrative retellings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 76:8 ► pp. 1797 ff. DOI logo
Khasbage, Yash, Daniel Alcaraz Carrión, Jennifer Hinnell, Frankie Robertson, Karan Singla, Peter Uhrig & Mark B. Turner
2022. The Red Hen Anonymizer and the Red Hen Protocol for De-Identifying Audiovisual Recordings. SSRN Electronic Journal DOI logo
Parrill, Fey, Jennifer Hinnell, Grace Moran, Hannah Boylan, Ishita Gupta & Aisha Zamir
2022. Observers use gesture to disambiguate contrastive expressions of preference. Language and Cognition 14:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Debreslioska, Sandra & Marianne Gullberg
2020. The semantic content of gestures varies with definiteness, information status and clause structure. Journal of Pragmatics 168 ► pp. 36 ff. DOI logo
Hinnell, Jennifer & Fey Parrill
2020. Gesture Influences Resolution of Ambiguous Statements of Neutral and Moral Preferences. Frontiers in Psychology 11 DOI logo
Li, Heng & Yu Cao
2019. The Body in Religion: The Spatial Mapping of Valence in Tibetan Practitioners of Bön. Cognitive Science 43:4 DOI logo
Li, Heng & Yu Cao
2025. Out of sight, but still in the mind: Body-specific associations between space and valence in blind people. Cognition 264 ► pp. 106262 ff. DOI logo
Stec, Kashmiri & Lars Bo Larsen
2018. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video, ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue