Gesture and Silence as Indicators of Planning in Speech

Butterworth, Brian; Beattie, Geoffrey

doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-2532-1_19

Cited by 137 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result contradicts those observed by Kim et al (2014), who found that head movements occurred during the critical focused word in narrow-focus conditions but they occurred everywhere in broad-focus conditions. Yet, it goes in line with previous studies on gesture-speech alignment, which observed that the onset and offset of gesture movements are aligned with the onset and offsets of affiliated target words (e.g., Butterworth and Beattie, 1978;Kendon, 1980;Nobe, 2000;Roustan and Dohen, 2010;Schegloff, 1984).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The timing of head movements: The role of prosodic heads and edges

Esteve-Gibert

Borràs-Comes

Asor

et al. 2017

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the influence of the position of prosodic heads (accented syllables) and prosodic edges (prosodic word and intonational phrase boundaries) on the timing of head movements. Gesture movements and prosodic events tend to be temporally aligned in the discourse, the most prominent part of gestures typically being aligned with prosodically prominent syllables in speech. However, little is known about the impact of the position of intonational phrase boundaries on gesture-speech alignment patterns. Twenty-four Catalan speakers produced spontaneous (experiment 1) and semi-spontaneous head gestures with a confirmatory function (experiment 2), along with phrasefinal focused words in different prosodic conditions (stress-initial, stress-medial, and stress-final). Results showed (a) that the scope of head movements is the associated focused prosodic word, (b) that the left edge of the focused prosodic word determines where the interval of gesture prominence starts, and (c) that the speech-anchoring site for the gesture peak (or apex) depends both on the location of the accented syllable and the distance to the upcoming intonational phrase boundary. These results demonstrate that prosodic heads and edges have an impact on the timing of head movements, and therefore that prosodic structure plays a central role in the timing of co-speech gestures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The timing of head movements: The role of prosodic heads and edges

Esteve-Gibert

Borràs-Comes

Asor

et al. 2017

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Butterworth & Beattie, 1978;Morrel-Samuels & Krauss, 1992;Schegloff, 1984) . Morrel-Samuels and Krauss (1992) them to retrieve a particular word form, and enter this variable into the formula that determines the gesture's duration.…”

Section: Autonomous Vs Interactive Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical gestures and lexical access: a process model

Krauss

Chen

Gottesman

2000

Language and Gesture

390

357

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…to what strip speech. It is well established that iconic gestures typically precede their lexical a‰li-ates (Butterworth and Beattie 1978;Morrel-Samuels and Krauss 1992;Scheglo¤ 1984). With respect to face-to-face interaction, Scheglo¤ (1984) suggests that this ordering might provide evidence of the extent of the 'projection space' -the point at which something not yet articulated can be understood as interactionally 'in play.'…”

Section: Example (1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: Multimodal interaction

Stivers¹,

Sidnell²

2005

Semiotica

354

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

That human social interaction involves the intertwined cooperation of di¤erent modalities is uncontroversial. Researchers in several allied fields have, however, only recently begun to document the precise ways in which talk, gesture, gaze, and aspects of the material surround are brought together to form coherent courses of action. 1 The papers in this volume are attempts to develop this line of inquiry. Although the authors draw on a range of analytic, theoretical, and methodological traditions (conversation analysis, ethnography, distributed cognition, and workplace studies), all are concerned to explore and illuminate the inherently multimodal character of social interaction. Recent studies, including those collected in this volume, suggest that di¤erent modalities work together not only to elaborate the semantic content of talk but also to constitute coherent courses of action. In this introduction we present evidence for this position. We begin by reviewing some select literature focusing primarily on communicative functions and interactive organizations of specific modalities before turning to consider the integration of distinct modalities in interaction. Semiotic modalitiesAs conversation analysts, we begin by observing that social interaction is most 'at home' in face-to-face interaction. This is as Scheglo¤ (2000a: 1) puts it a 'species-distinctive embodiment of the primordial site of sociality.' Levinson notes along similar lines that . . . conversation is clearly the prototypical kind of language usage, the form in which we are all first exposed to language -the matrix for language acquisition. Various aspects of pragmatic organization can be shown to be centrally organized around usage in conversation. [For instance, the] unmarked usages of grammatical encodings of temporal, spatial, social discourse parameters are organized Face-to-face interaction is, by definition, multimodal interaction in which participants encounter a steady stream of meaningful facial expressions, gestures, body postures, head movements, words, grammatical constructions, and prosodic contours. In this chapter we follow Enfield (2005) in distinguishing between the vocal/aural and visuospatial modalities. The vocal-aural modality encompasses spoken language including prosody. The visuospatial modality includes gesture, gaze, and body postures. As Enfield notes, these di¤er not only in terms of modality but also with respect to which semiotic ground plays a dominant role in their organization. Vocal-aural signs are prototypically symbolic whereas indexicality and iconicity are more important in the visuospatial modality. 2 We want to point out that by looking at interaction from a multimodal perspective we do not mean to privilege one modality over another (e.g., visuospatial over vocal/aural) but rather to suggest that much can be gained from examining a turn-at-talk for where it is situated vocally (e.g., sequentially, prosodically, syntactically) as well as visuospatially (e.g., body orientation, facial expression, accompa...

show abstract

Gesture and Silence as Indicators of Planning in Speech

Cited by 137 publications

References 10 publications

The timing of head movements: The role of prosodic heads and edges

The timing of head movements: The role of prosodic heads and edges

Lexical gestures and lexical access: a process model

Introduction: Multimodal interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About