Gesture and Thought

McNeill, David

doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226514642.001.0001

Cited by 1,313 publications

(576 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

500

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some gesture production theories propose that gesture and speech are inseparable (e.g., McNeill, 2005McNeill, , 2012McNeill & Duncan, 2000). Although our current data are consistent with this view and it is possible that speech and gesture originate from the same conceptualization process, there is ample evidence that the motor preparation and execution of gesture and speech are controlled by distinct brain networks (e.g., Gazzaniga, Ivry, & Mangun, 2008;Kandel, Schwartz, Jessell, Siegelbaum, & Hudspeth, 2013).…”

Section: Implications For Speech and Gesture Production Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interactive view proposes that synchronization between speech and gesture is achieved through continuous interaction of the two systems not only during their planning but also during their execution phases. The two views agree that the two systems are interactive (in fact, on some proposals, speech and gesture may be inseparable; McNeill, 2005McNeill, , 2012McNeill & Duncan, 2000) before they are executed, but they differ on whether or not the two action systems are still interactive after their execution has been initiated; that is, once the joined speechgesture plan is implemented in the two action systems. The present study aims to contrast the two views by manipulating the gesture or speech system after its execution has been initiated and measuring the effect on the other system.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Synchronization of speech and gesture: Evidence for interaction in action.

Chu

Hagoort

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language and action systems are highly interlinked. A critical piece of evidence is that speech and its accompanying gestures are tightly synchronized. Five experiments were conducted to test 2 hypotheses about the synchronization of speech and gesture. According to the interactive view, there is continuous information exchange between the gesture and speech systems, during both their planning and execution phases. According to the ballistic view, information exchange occurs only during the planning phases of gesture and speech, but the 2 systems become independent once their execution has been initiated. In all experiments, participants were required to point to and/or name a light that had just lit up. Virtual reality and motion tracking technologies were used to disrupt their gesture or speech execution. Participants delayed their speech onset when their gesture was disrupted. They did so even when their gesture was disrupted at its late phase and even when they received only the kinesthetic feedback of their gesture. Also, participants prolonged their gestures when their speech was disrupted. These findings support the interactive view and add new constraints on models of speech and gesture production.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Speech and Gesture Production Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Synchronization of speech and gesture: Evidence for interaction in action.

Chu

Hagoort

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He found that all children in all age groups used fewer conflated gestures and more manner only and path only gestures than their adult counterparts, who all predominantly used conflated gestures. 1 McNeill (2005) proposed that this dominant and possibly universal pattern found in gestures of all children could be due to the effect of learning language in general on gestural representations. For example, learning that event components can be segmented and expressed by different words (e.g., one word for manner, one word for path, as in roll up) shapes how events are represented in gestures as well (i.e., one gesture for manner and one gesture for path).…”

Section: Development Of the Relations Between Speech And Gesturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Speakers often gesture as they speak, especially when they talk about space (Rauscher, Krauss, & Chen, 1996). Recent research has shown that speech and cospeech gesture form an integrated system (Bernardis & Gentilucci, 2006;Clark, 1996;Kendon, 2004;McNeill, 1992McNeill, , 2005 and that they develop in close relation to each other during childhood (Bates, 1976;Capirci, Iverson, Pizzuto, & Volterra, 1996;McNeill, 1992McNeill, , 2005Nicoladis, Mayberry, & Genesee, 1999;Ö zçalişkan & Goldin-Meadow, 2005). Cospeech gestures have also been found to reflect children's representations not necessarily expressed in speech at certain stages of development (Alibali & Goldin-Meadow, 1993;Ehrlich, Levine, & Goldin-Meadow, 2006;Pine, Nicola, & Messer, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of cross-linguistic variation in speech and gesture: Motion events in English and Turkish.

Özyürek¹,

Kita²,

Allen³

et al. 2008

Developmental Psychology

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The way adults express manner and path components of a motion event varies across typologically different languages both in speech and cospeech gestures, showing that language specificity in event encoding influences gesture. The authors tracked when and how this multimodal cross-linguistic variation develops in children learning Turkish and English, 2 typologically distinct languages. They found that children learn to speak in language-specific ways from age 3 onward (i.e., English speakers used 1 clause and Turkish speakers used 2 clauses to express manner and path). In contrast, English-and Turkish-speaking children's gestures looked similar at ages 3 and 5 (i.e., separate gestures for manner and path), differing from each other only at age 9 and in adulthood (i.e., English speakers used 1 gesture, but Turkish speakers used separate gestures for manner and path). The authors argue that this pattern of the development of cospeech gestures reflects a gradual shift to language-specific representations during speaking and shows that looking at speech alone may not be sufficient to understand the full process of language acquisition.

show abstract

“…Unlike some theories that embed gesture generation within speech production processes (e.g., de Ruiter, 2000;McNeill, 2005), we propose that gestures are generated from the processes that also generate practical actions (e.g., grasping a cup to drink; Hostetter & Alibali, 2008;Kita, 2000;Kita & Özyürek, 2003;Kita, 2014), and therefore, gestures share some properties with practical actions (Chu & Kita, 2015). Because thinking in terms of action has different properties from propositional or verbal thinking, gesture offers possibilities and perspectives that propositional or verbal thinking cannot, and therefore, gesture affects thinking in particular ways.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis.

Kita

Alibali

Chu

2017

Psychological Review

248

264

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Permanent WRAP URL:http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/84187 Copyright and reuse:The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work by researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way.Publisher's statement: © 2017, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors permission. The final article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/rev0000059 A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP URL' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. AbstractPeople spontaneously produce gestures during speaking and thinking. We focus here on gestures that depict or indicate information related to the contents of concurrent speech or thought (i.e., representational gestures). Previous research indicates that such gestures have not only communicative functions, but also self-oriented cognitive functions. In this paper, we propose a new theoretical framework, the Gesture-forConceptualization Hypothesis, which explains the self-oriented functions of representational gestures. According to this framework, representational gestures affect cognitive processes in four main ways: gestures activate, manipulate, package and explore spatio-motoric representations for speaking and thinking. These four functions are shaped by gesture's ability to schematize information, that is, to focus on a small subset of available information that is potentially relevant to the task at hand. The framework is based on the assumption that gestures are generated from the same system that generates practical actions, such as object manipulation; however, gestures are distinct from practical actions in that they represent information. The framework provides a novel, parsimonious and comprehensive account of the self-oriented functions of gestures. We discuss how the framework accounts for gestures that depict abstract or metaphoric content, and we consider implications for the relations between self-oriented and communicative functions of gestures.

show abstract

Gesture and Thought

Cited by 1,313 publications

References 0 publications

Synchronization of speech and gesture: Evidence for interaction in action.

Synchronization of speech and gesture: Evidence for interaction in action.

Development of cross-linguistic variation in speech and gesture: Motion events in English and Turkish.

How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About