71. Linguistic Annotation System for Gestures

Bressem, Jana; Ladewig, Silva H.; Müller, Cornelia

doi:10.1515/9783110261318.1098

Cited by 30 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This includes the analysis of gestures and signs across different naturalistic but also experimental contexts. It presupposes a close semiotic, interactional, and linguistic analysis of all the gestural forms we observe ‘in the wild’ ( Müller, 2010 , 2016 , 2017 ; Bressem et al, 2013 , see also Mittelberg, 2013 , 2014 ; Mittelberg and Evola, 2014 ; Mittelberg and Waugh, 2014 ) and the multitude of ways in which they are integrated with speech or sign creating simultaneous structures ( Vermeerbergen and Demey, 2007 ), composite utterances ( Enfield, 2009 , 2013 ; Janzen, 2017 ), gesture-speech ensembles ( Kendon, 2004 ), or multimodal utterances ( Ladewig, 2014a ; Ladewig, in press ). It also starts from a broader notion of the term gesture than the one suggested by McNeill and Goldin-Meadow.…”

Section: Beyond the Cataclysmic Break: Dynamic Relations Between Gestmentioning

confidence: 95%

Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations?

Müller

2018

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of the article is to offer a framework against which relations between gesture and sign can be systematically explored beyond the current literature. It does so by (a) reconstructing the history of the discussion in the field of gesture studies, focusing on three leading positions (Kendon, McNeill, and Goldin-Meadow); and (b) by formulating a position to illustrate how this can be achieved. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for systematic cross-linguistic research on multimodal use of language in its signed and spoken forms.

show abstract

Section: Beyond the Cataclysmic Break: Dynamic Relations Between Gestmentioning

confidence: 95%

Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations?

Müller

2018

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a form-based linguistic perspective on the study of gestures, gestural forms are assumed to be motivated form Gestalts, that is meaningful wholes, in which, however, every aspect of a gesture's form is regarded as potentially meaningful (Bressem and Ladewig 2011;Bressem et al 2013;Fricke 2012;Ladewig and Bressem 2013;Müller 2004Müller , 2010Müller et al 2013). Form features may be singled out and differences in form features may be meaningful.…”

Section: Identifying Recurrent Gestures In Savosavo: Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Multimodal language use in Savosavo

Bressem

Stein

Wegener

2022

PRAG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Departing from a short overview on pragmatic gestures specialized for the expression of refusal and negation, the article presents first results of a study on those gestures in Savosavo, a Papuan language spoken in the Solomon Islands in the Southwest Pacific. The paper focuses on two partly conventionalized gestures (sweeping and holding away) and shows that speakers of Savosavo use the gestures in a very similar way as speakers of German, English or French, for example. The article shows how a linguistic and semiotic analysis might serve to uncover proto-morpho-semantic structures in a manual mode of communication and contributes to a better understanding of the conventional nature and cross-linguistic distribution of gestures. Moreover, by examining partly conventionalized gestures in a small, little known and endangered language, it presents a particular approach to the analysis of multimodality in the field of language documentation.

show abstract

“…Preexisting multimodal data annotation schemes were taken into consideration but were deemed unsuitable for this study ( inter alia Baesler and Burgoon 1987; Bressem et al 2013; Kipp et al 2007; Kita et al 1998; McNeill 1992). The majority of available coding schemes focus on co-speech gestures, or “utterance dedicated visible bodily actions” (Kendon 2015), where the objects of study are those body movements (especially manual ones) that humans more or less spontaneously produce accompanied by speech.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordinated Collaboration and Nonverbal Social Interactions: A Formal and Functional Analysis of Gaze, Gestures, and Other Body Movements in a Contemporary Dance Improvisation Performance

Evola

Skubisz

2019

J Nonverbal Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a microanalysis of what information performers “give” and “give off” to each other via their bodies during a contemporary dance improvisation. We compare what expert performers and non-performers (sufficiently trained to successfully perform) do with their bodies during a silent, multiparty improvisation exercise, in order to identify any differences and to provide insight into nonverbal communication in a less conventional setting. The coordinated collaboration of the participants (two groups of six) was examined in a frame-by-frame analysis focusing on all body movements, including gaze shifts as well as the formal and functional movement units produced in the head–face, upper-, and lower-body regions. The Methods section describes in detail the annotation process and inter-rater agreement. The results of this study indicate that expert performers during the improvisation are in “performance mode” and have embodied other social cognitive strategies and skills (e.g., endogenous orienting, gaze avoidance, greater motor control) that the non-performers do not have available. Expert performers avoid using intentional communication, relying on information to be inferentially communicated in order to coordinate collaboratively, with silence and stillness being construed as meaningful in that social practice and context. The information that expert performers produce is quantitatively less (i.e., producing fewer body movements) and qualitatively more inferential than intentional compared to a control group of non-performers, which affects the quality of the performance.

show abstract

71. Linguistic Annotation System for Gestures

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations?

Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations?

Multimodal language use in Savosavo

Coordinated Collaboration and Nonverbal Social Interactions: A Formal and Functional Analysis of Gaze, Gestures, and Other Body Movements in a Contemporary Dance Improvisation Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About