Gesture and language: Iconicity and viewpoint - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Gesture and language: Iconicity and viewpoint PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 62cf9-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Gesture and language: Iconicity and viewpoint

Description:

Goldin-Meadow) Conventional 'emblems' Gesture is a universal ... No big surprise, since in actual. communication, these distinctions are inevitable. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:212
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 77
Provided by: eveesw
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Gesture and language: Iconicity and viewpoint


1
Gesture and languageIconicity and viewpoint
Eve Sweetser Dept. of Linguistics University of
California, Berkeley sweetser_at_berkeley.edu CogSc
i Faculty Retreat, Dec. 7, 2007
2
Gesture is a universal
People gesture when they speak. In every
culture. Gesture is minutely co-timed with
speech production in what is clearly a common
neural production package. (McNeill, Hand and
Mind) What varies Size of gesture
space Precise pattern of co-timing of speech and
gesture (This takes a lot of learning! Cf.
McNeill, Goldin-Meadow) Conventional
emblems
3
How much of a gesture is meaningful - and to
whom?
Speakers gesture in absence of physical
interlocutor seeing the gestures. (on the
telephone, for example) Speakers lexical access
is impeded by impeding gesture - especially
lexical access to spatial vocabulary. Speakers
gesture LESS without physical interlocutor in
particular, INTERACTIVE gestures are
diminished. (Bavelas et al.) (Though nods and
head-shakes may persist!) Content gestures are
still there. Speakers alter gestural patterns to
take addressees into account (Özyurek 2000).
4
Gesture structure
Gestures have prosodic structure like speech. A
linguistic PHRASE often coincides with a single
GESTURE, therefore called a gestural phrase
by some (Kendon). A linguistic phrase has
various stages including a preparatory
phase possibly a pre-stroke hold a STROKE
(the major motion phase of a gesture, often
temporally associated with some specific
constituent of the linguistic phrase, in
English often the VERB) a post-stroke
hold retraction
5
Intermodal meaning overlap
Gestural phrases are temporally associated with
linguistic forms whose meaning is related to
theirs. Gesture can add information not present
in the linguistic form. It can also give
interactional meaning about how to take the
linguistic content. And it can contradict (and
win out over) linguistic information in the
listener/viewers interpretation. HOW and WHY
does gesture accompany language this way?
Attentional focus is one aspect of the
interaction - Mischa will talk about that.
6
Things to notice in Listen
The use of the INTER-SPEAKER space the floor is
gained by reaching gesturally into the space
between the two speakers spaces - and even
into the interlocutors space. The use of the
unclaimed adjacent space the cupboard
could NOT just as well be in between the
interlocutors, but the stacking can be done
in the speakers own gesture space.
7
Listen
8
Listen transcript
S1 the underside. S2 OK, this is what would
happen. S1 Youd stack dishes. S2 Listen. We
did stack dishes buut Id like reach in to get a
plate to get ready to eat and thered be like
grea- S1 laughs S2 - thered be like grease
on the bottom S1 yeah S2 And Id be like
9
Listen transcript
S1 mimes washing the underside of the dishes as
she says the underside, then shapes a stack of
plates (or makes a stacking gesture) as she says
youd stack dishes. S2 is meanwhile trying
to break into S1s high-involvement feedback,
which is keeping her from the floor. She first
says, OK, this is what would happen, with
hands shaping a new topic in her own gesture
space, which return to rest as she fails to get
the floor. She then tries again with Listen -
accompanying her attempt with three left-hand
D-points (on listen, did and buut), which
reach well out of her own space into the shared
interactional gesture space. She gains the
floor.
10
Listen
11
Iconicity
ICONICITY a representation is iconic if the form
in some way resembles the meaning. Spoken
language examples (1) phonosymbolism meow,
crash, pop. (2) She talked on and on and on.
But (cf. Taub, Language from the Body) the
VISUAL-GESTURAL medium allows for a greater
variety of effective iconic mechanisms than the
auditory one. Signed languages therefore share
this extra-iconic character with gesture,
although they are conventional in ways that
gesture is not.
12
Visual-gestural iconicity
Iconic mappings (thanks to S. Taub) ASL TREE
iconically represents a schematic concept of a
tree. DH FOREARM TRUNK DH HAND FINGERS
BRANCHES (note doesnt mean a tree with 5
branches!) NDH FOREARM GROUND Upper arms,
signers head trunk NOT MAPPED
13
How conventional is gesture?
There are cultural and crosscultural regularities
in how people gesture about both concrete and
abstract domains. (Metaphor and iconicity
can be conventional, we know and
culture-specific. HKSL Tree vs. ASL
Tree. Local catchments (cf. McNeill and
Duncan, in McNeill (2000)) regularly arise in
interaction. Just as local repeated phrasings
do. Reduced forms of these catchments still
carry meaning. (cf. Also LeBaron and
Streeck. McNeills Snow White experiment.
14
Iconic gestures can then be interpreted
metaphorically
Gesture forwards - does that mean physically
ahead of me, or in the future? Rotation of hand
- does that mean some physical object is
rotating, or does it show repetitive or ongoing
aspect of an action? Hand up, palm out - is the
speaker trying to prevent the addressee from
approaching her (or fend off a projectile), or is
she metaphorically fending off questions
Cf. Parrill and Sweetser 2004.
15
Metaphor
All languages use METAPHOR, because all cultures
have metaphoric cognitive patterns. One way
of looking at metaphor understanding more
abstract things in terms of more concrete
things. TIME IS SPACE FUTURE IS IN FRONT OF
EGO PAST IS BEHIND EGO last year is behind
us look ahead to next year Source and target
domains
16
Metaphoric gestures are iconic for the SOURCE
domain of the metaphoric mapping.
Gesture forwards for future FUTURE IS
AHEAD. Hand up, palm out to forestall questions
IDEAS ARE OBJECTS, COMMUNICATION IS OBJECT
EXCHANGE Palm-up offering hand, meaning its
obvious, or now Im sure you see Again,
COMMUNICATION IS OBJECT EXCHANGE.
17
Put you away iconic mappings
2 B hands, palms facing each other (thumb side
up) The hands of someone putting something
away. Motion of the gesturers hands Motion
of the hands putting something away. Space
between gesturers hands object being put away
(box?) (Invisible surrogate! Moves when hands
do.)
18
Put you away metaphoric mappings
CONVICTED CRIMINAL AN OBJECT (a box?) PUTTING
CRIMINAL IN PRISON PUTTING THE OBJECT
AWAY AGENT PUTTING CRIMINAL IN PRISON AGENT
PUTTING THE OBJECT AWAY RESULTING STATUS OF
CRIMINAL (STUCK IN ONE PLACE, MONITORED)
RESULTING STATUS OF OBJECT (WHEN PUT AWAY, WE
KNOW WHERE TO FIND IT AND WE DONT THINK IT
WILL GET LOST).
19
Sign language examples
TOMORROW, YESTERDAY KNOW, IDEA VOTE,
TEABAG DIPLOMA DRIVE, FLY(PLANE) NEPHEW, NIECE,
COUSIN
20
Things to note in concepts
Setting up of two spatial areas, concepts and
forms. Mapping between them. The encircling
gestures for framework.
21
Concepts
22
Transcript of concepts
Clip name concepts map onto the world (lecture
by Mark Johnson) ...have fixed definitions and
they map onto the world...um... and that
knowledge consists in...framing a set of concepts
that neatly map onto states of affairs in the
world whether those states of affairs have to do
with morality or politics or um...or
um...quantum physics or whatever.
23
Gesture transpript of concepts
Clip name concepts map onto the world (lecture
by Mark Johnson) Two B hands to Left, delineate
a definition/concept space. They then move to the
Right and delineate a World space. Delineation of
a globe-shaped central space is framing a set
of concepts. Moving hands from one side to the
other is mapping Handwaving shows it doesnt
matter at the discourse level (cf. whatever)
24
Concepts
25
Viewpoint, language and body
Language is basically, intrinsically viewpointed.
Cognition is basically, intrinsically
viewpointed. (BECAUSE) The body is basically,
intrinsically viewpointed.
26
Implications
Cognition could not be genuinely independent of
bodily experience, and language could not be
independent of (embodied) cognition. The
surprising thing would be if we did NOT exploit
our constant use of irrealis space
understandings for other less obviously or
immediately functional purposes. It would
also be really surprising if fictional characters
and situations lacked viewpoint.
27
Linguistic viewpoint
Message in a bottle Meet me here tomorrow.
Deictic marking (e.g., here/there, this/that)
is pervasive in human language. In a physical
scene it marks speakers physical viewpoint.
BUT cf. Rubba 1986, or Hanks 1990 a distal
deictic can just as well mean social
non-identification. This cooking-fire can mean
the one I cook on, while that cooking fire can
mean the one I dont get to cook on. This part
of town can mean my part of town, and that kind
of neighborhood can mean the kind I lack an
ethnic affiliation with.
28
Linguistic viewpoint 2
First, second and third person seem to be
linguistic universals I, You, Other Speaker,
Addressee, Third Party. No big surprise, since
in actual communication, these distinctions are
inevitable. BUT (Rubba 1986) there are
differences between so-called impersonal uses
of English 2nd-person you and 3rd-person one or
they. You shows more identification of the
speaker with the referent, even though all the
referents are third-person.
29
Linguistic viewpoint markers 1
All the different ways that content is presented
and construed differently depending on (among
other things!) Where the Speaker and Addressee
are assumed to be, and what they be able to
see, be able to reach, etc. (The Real
Space.) here, there, this, that, next door,
. When S and A are assumed to be now, then,
tomorrow, last year What an imagined
participant can see, reach, etc., from an
imagined location in some imagined space. What
the Speaker and Addressee are assumed to know,
think, presuppose, and be able to calculate
mentally about whatever mental space is
involved. The/a, if/when/since, choice of
formal/informal pronouns, presuppositional
verbs like stop,...
30
Linguistic viewpoint markers 2
What the Speaker and Addressee feel about the
contents of the relevant spaces - how they
evaluate them affectively, culturally, etc.
Thrifty/stingy, maybe, hopefully,. And what
imagined participants know, think, presuppose,
calculate, feel, etc. about relevant
spaces. (And more, including possession, social
identification and differentiation, .) In
short, language seems affected by just about
anything about the way that a particular
individuals mental space construal is specific
to that individuals cognitive and perceptual
access.
31
What is viewpoint?
Literal origo of visual access and
perspective. Social viewpoint Literary
viewpoint Cognitive viewpoint We
co-experience Our physical visual perspective on
events Our self-location and definition of
peripersonal space Our tactile and other sensory
access to the situation Our cognitive assessment
of the situation Our emotional reaction to the
situation Video systems may give us multiple
simultaneous visual perspectives on the same
event but normally all we get is one our own.
32
The asymmetric Self
Front-back Asymmetric physical access, manual
affordances Asymmetric visual access Asymmetric
movement affordances Up-down We have no
experience of life outside an asymmetric gravitic
field. Motion, vision, etc are all affected by
this. Left-right Dominant/non-dominant hand
asymmetric manual affordances Relative spatial
languages vs. absolute spatial languages.
Inherent and transferred asymmetry of non-human
entities.
33
What is viewpoint, cont.
Asymmetries in visual access correlate with
asymmetries in Informational access attendant
on visual access Physical access to object
manipulation Motion affordances This complex
set of correlations with located visual
viewpoint also correlate with evaluative
differences in assessing the situation. The
kid with the plate of cookies in front of her, as
opposed to the one who doesnt, not only
has different visual, tactile, etc., access,
but a reason to plan differently, make
different inferences, and experience the
situation differently from an emotional
viewpoint.
34
Why these belong together
What the evidence seems to show is that children
from the start react differently to humans vs.
nonhumans and animates vs. inanimates, even
though they only gradually develop the adult
concepts of human-ness and animacy. Relatively
early shared attention loci, attention to
direction of caregivers eye-gaze. Even at
early stages of language-learning, children show
considerable interactional ability to cope with
the fact that caregivers may disapprove of
their actions or try to thwart them, and
versatile mechanisms for getting approval.
They also request information and transmit it.
35
Levels of theory of mind
Moreover, meta-awareness of even some of the
basic perceptual aspects of differentiation
develops slowly. Small children clearly
understand that they cant see or know everything
their parents see or know - they ask questions
expecting the caregiver to know more than they
do, and they ask to be picked up to get a
better view, as they know the grownup is getting
one. BUT they tend to think that interlocutors
(esp. adults??) not only know but actually see
everything they do. They point and say this
and that when speaking on the telephone, or
to a caregiver who cant see the object in
question.
36
Levels of theory of mind 2
A late stage in all this is the acquisition of a
conscious meta-awareness that other people have
MINDS whose STATES may be DIFFERENT from
theirs other people may know or believe
different things from what they know and
believe (Wimmer, Perner, Tomasello,.), and
people may feel differently about the same
stimuli. (E.g. celery and goldfish crackers -
cf. Gopnik.)
37
Incomplete shared viewpoint
The ability to put yourself in someone elses
position cognitively and emotionally is one
that adults never fully learn (if they did, one
supposes they would essentially have out-of-body
experiences in other peoples situations).
38
Incomplete shared viewpoint 2
BUT humans cant unlearn or do without such
viewpoint sharing. We cant help having physical
and emotional responses to film images of
humans involved in eating, crying, laughing,
kissing, or hitting each other. Reading a
newspaper story about strangers who have lost
their jobs, or cant get ex-husbands to pay
child support, or have overcome odds to win a
sports event - these things, to a greater or
lesser degree, put us in sympathy with the
participants viewpoints. Inasmuch as we are
considerate of others in daily life, much of
our consideration derives not just from
following the rules but from being able to
imagine how the other person would feel if we
did the opposite.
39
Local and global coherence
All primates appear to have mirror neuron
circuits which (at least for certain aspects of
physical interaction and spatial relations) are
activated both by the Selfs motions of hand,
mouth, foot and the Selfs peripersonal space,
and by an observed primates actions and
spatial relations. The ability to maintain
local coherence between differing viewpoints
apparently follows from our physical perceptions
of motion, space, etc, including mirror
neurons NOTE, we do not have trouble tracking
which things are in our interlocutors field of
vision, even though it may be very different from
ours. This is a plausible basis on which to build
later higher-level awareness of different
viewpoints as parts of a coherent larger scene.

40
Other peoples viewpoints
Add to this a basic experience of INTERACTION
with another human with viewpoint (babies
interact with care-givers actively from the
start). A contrast between SPEAKER and
ADDRESSEE - or more generally between a
communicatively expressive agent and the
intended interpreting observer - is thus
another deeply entrenched experiential
correlation. From the start, we experience
ourselves in BOTH of these two roles. And,
thanks to our understanding that everyone has
Viewpoint, Viewpoint blends freely with either
the Speaker or the Hearer role in the
Speaker-Hearer contrast.
41
Adult cognition requires that speakers
(1) Have the experiential correlations involved
in having a Viewpoint from the inside. (2)
Project that kind of experiential correlation of
Viewpoint onto other people, assuming that
they also have that kind of perspectival
experience of the world. (3) meta-navigate this
system - be able to go back and forth between
representing one viewpoint and another, and
know when/whether our language requires or
allows particular viewpoint representations of
situations. (May S, or must S, say Id love to
come to your party rather than using
go?) (4) also have some natural representation
of global, less viewpointed knowledge (e.g.
spatial knowledge) (5) be able to represent many
situations linguistically in global as well
as in participant viewpoints.
42
Adult cognition requires that speakersalso
(6) Project much of their systematic spatiomotor
viewpoint structure onto other understanding
of less concrete domains such as Time, social
relations, cognition, selfhood. (7)
Maintain more and less perspectival models of
these domains as well, and know when to use
language which shows the appropriate
perspectival construal. (8) Be able to TAKE
APART viewpoint blends, maintaining personal
Iness and you ness separate from (for
example) a proximal/distal structure, and use
linguistic forms appropriate to this
dissection.
43
(No Transcript)
44
8
45
Experiential basis of deixis
  • Most languages seem to have at least a two-way
    distinction between
  • this and that, here and there.
  • Some have more complex three-way distinctions
    (here, there, yonder).
  • Basis in Speakers visual field and manual access
    field
  • Here within Ss manual access range
  • There within the visual field but outside
    manual access range
  • Yonder outside both visual field and manual
    access field.
  • In a two-term system, the manual access field
  • would be the central sense of here, the area
    outside the manual
  • access and vision fields would be unmistakably
    there, and the area
  • of the visual field beyond manual access would
    be negotiable,
  • depending on what objects were being contrasted.

46
Experiential basis of deixis, 2
(2) Basis in the Speaker/Hearer contrast Here
near S There near H Yon away from both.
(Once again, in a two-term system, things get
fuzzy.) This is not necessarily in opposition to
the analysis in terms of Ss different fields
of access we might expect that in a prototypical
communicative exchange, S and H will be within
visual range of each other, and that there may
very possibly be more overlap between their
visual fields than between their fields of manual
access. So near H (or nearer to H than to
S) might well also refer to a location beyond
Ss manual access, but inside Ss visual field.
47
Problems with the spatial view of deixis
(1) It doesnt, on its own, explain systematic
extensions to time, or the independent system
of temporal deixis more on this soon! (2) It
doesnt explain all the SOCIAL, non-spatial uses
of deixis. (cf. Rubba 1996, Hanks Referential
Practice). (3) It doesnt explain
language-specific spatial uses (is the this
term or the that term, the come verb or
the go verb, the unmarked member of the pair,
for example?) A combination of problems (2) and
(3) can be noted in French Professeur Jones
nest pas ici. (She works at UCLA, not at
UCB)) Professeur Jones nest pas là. (She is
not at her desk just now)
48
Metaphoric viewpoint spaces
Social uses of here/there, this/that can readily
be seen as FURTHER blends, between physical
space and social space. This should be seen as
coherent with the very general metaphorical
spatialization of our concepts of Self and social
structure. SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP IS PHYSICAL
CLOSENESS SOCIAL ALIENATION IS PHYSICAL DISTANCE
49
Displaced deixis
The speaker's body is one of our most basic
landmarks for understanding whatever she says.
It is because bodily viewpoint infuses our
cognitive and interactional structure that
deixis and perspective are so pervasively
manifested in language. Yet actual here-and-now
bodily viewpoint is very flexibly displaced to
represent other imagined ones we don't really
know the meaning of here or the reference of a
pointing gesture unless we know whether, for
example, the speaker is enacting some irrealis
situation . Such displacement phenomena are
present equally in language and gesture, and in
spoken and signed languages. They can
usefully be analyzed as blends of the
here-and-now deictic space with an imagined one.
50
Real-space viewpoint blends
The visual/gestural modality uses Ss body to
represent (among other things!) - itself,
at other times and places - other human bodies
and animal bodies Every representation of a
body brings with it the physical asymmetries
of affordance and sensory access which
are characteristic of bodies in other words,
VIEWPOINT can represent VIEWPOINT
DEICTIC CENTER can represent DEICTIC CENTER.
BODILY AFFORDANCES can represent BODILY
AFFORDANCES This is crucial to the ways in which
gesture can represent social and abstract
concepts.
51
Displaced gestural deixis
Displacement of deictic centers occurs in gesture
as well as in language. cf. Havilands work,
esp. Haviland 2000. Simple spatial points
are anything but simple. The same pointing
gesture used by a Mayan compadre of Haviland
to refer first to the direction in which he
would find the ruins if he went to the town
of Palenque (pointing AS IF FROM a location
in the distant town), and to refer to the
direction from the speech location to a local
landmark. (Palenque is in the opposite
direction from the speech location.) Pointin
g is INDEXICAL rather than iconic? Or both?
52
Secondary iconicity
Very saliently, a set of deep metaphoric mappings
based in the spatial source domain allow what I
refer to as secondary iconicity effects in the
visual/gestural domain. These are crucially
mappings of one deictically centered domain onto
another, which is why they are naturally and
saliently representable in the visual/gestural
modality. One obvious and complex example is
TIME IS SPACE. Gesture, like most signed
languages, normally and conventionally uses
body-centered spatial deixis to represent
now-centered temporal deixis. FUTURE
FORWARDS, PAST BACK (contrast with sideways
time line) This is so natural that the
connection is nearly as strong as any direct
iconic mapping.
53
Spatiotemporal metaphors and experiential bases
(cf. Moore 2000, Nuñez and Sweetser 2001
forthcoming) (1) The experience of moving along
a path, and encountering one location after
another. Linear mapping of locations to
times inferential structure is
parallel. Past, already-encountered locations
are behind Ego Future, yet-to-be-seen
locations are in front of Ego. (2) The
experience of standing and looking in front of
Ego. Asymmetry can see in front of self, not
in back. (Therefore can know whats happening
in front.) Corresponding temporal asmmetry can
know past events, not future ones.
54
Going to
25
55
Coming to
26
56
Nayra mara
57
Nayra mara
58
Deictic references
30 Reference to current physical
speech-act setting Speaker points to a present
object in the room. Speaker points to her own
body, meaning to refer to herself. Blends
already present content and physical
setting! (e.g. Points at an object What is
wrong with that? gesture identifies entity in
world AS part of content)
59
Abstract described deixis
English speaker gestures backwards when referring
to long ago... A more complex blend a French
speaker says Cétait bien avant (it was well
before (that time), i.e., earlier), and
gestures backwards. The speech here
metaphorically sets up a moving-time
structure, while the gesture seems to refer to
an ego-centered (past is back, future is
ahead) metaphorical mapping. An Aymara speaker
says nayra (long ago) and gestures forwards.
(Nuñez) Prevalence of deictically centered
(Egocentric) models of time in gesture.
(What would this be like in an absolute
spatial language?)
60
Long and short range
Speaker discusses planning, long-range
and short-range. Speakers body is the center
from which relative futurity from a
hypothetical present is calculated. Speaker
compares two topics or gives two
viewpoints Speakers dominant hands space
represents the central topic or the speakers
viewpoint, while the non-dominant hand
represents the contrasting topic or viewpoint.
61
Dynamic programming
62
Dynamic programming
63
chess
64
chess
65
Mental book-keeping
66
Mental book-keeping
67
Stop and take questions
68
Stop and take questions
69
Generalizations more than one direction away
from the center. SIDES Dominant vs.
non-dominant Trajector vs. landmark Main
topic vs. secondary topic Speakers views vs.
contrasting views UP/DOWN Up or down vs. level
normative place on scale is on speakers
gesture-space level (A speaker identifying
with embodiment places reality on level, and
abstract ideas on a higher level opposite
his face.)
70
Motion and event structure Event trajectories
start near speaker, move towards farther away.
(The start is a baseline Ego is a
baseline.) Aspect (cf. Duncan) Mapping of
aspectual structure from gesture to represented
activity, etc. Query how global can
gesture ever be? Theres always perspective,
even if Ego isnt mapped onto some represented
entity.
71
36 In gesture, discourse and temporal
deictic spaces are not only conceived spatially
(as they are pervasively in spoken language),
they are actually enacted in Real Space. The
same is true of signed language. (One more
reason why Sign Linguistics needs to
incorporate viewpoint from the ground up, as
Liddell and others have argued.) Enactment of
other spaces in Real Space, or use of deictically
centered words with displaced senses in spoken
language, need not of course diminish the
cognitive and perceptual priority of Real Space.
It is precisely their dependence on Real
Space which gives discourse and social and
temporal spatial uses their cognitive power and
flexibility.
72
Conclusions The physical viewpoint of the
speaker is highly polysemous in gesture, and in
some very conventional ways. It represents much
of the range of phenomena which linguists and
literary analysts and speakers have referred to
by the label viewpoint metaphorically. It
does so systematically, in ways that parallel
linguistic metaphor, but are directly embodied
as spoken-language metaphor is not. No surprise
that novelists use descriptions of physical
situations from some specific physical vantage
point, as well as evaluative and descriptive
and deictic and other aspects of language, to
show character viewpoint.
73
Written language is a very strange medium. In
principle, it needs to step back from meet me
here tomorrow and give information that is
less situated and more explicit. In fact, the
very same issues permeate written language at the
next level down. Joey sat quietly. (is this
an onlooking teachers viewpoint?) Daddy would
come soon to pick him up. Everything would be
all right then. (cf. Banfield) The police
spent the morning trying to locate the kidnapped
child, but they could not find her. Finally
they received a telephone call. A man had
spotted a small girl in a park. The
kidnappers had apparently released her.
74
39
References Cienki, Alan. 1998. Metaphoric
gestures and some of their relations to verbal
metaphoric expressions. In Discourse and
Cognition, ed. J-P Koenig, 189-204. Stanford
CA CSLI Publications. Hanks, William. 1990.
Referential Practice Language and lived space
among the Maya. University of Chicago
Press. Haviland, John. 2000. Pointing, gesture
spaces and mental maps. In McNeill (2000), pp.
13-46. Kendon, Adam. 2000. Language and
gesture unity or duality? In McNeill (2000),
pp. 47-63. Kendon, Adam. 1995. Gestures as
illocutionary and discourse structure markers in
southern Italian conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics 233, pp. 247-279.
75
40 Langacker, Ronald W. 1987, 1991.
Foundations of Cognitive Linguistics. Stanford
Stanford University Press. _______. 1990.
Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1
5-38. Levinson, Stephen. 2003. Space in
language and cognition. Cambridge Cambridge
University Press. Liddell, Scott. 1998.
Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts.
Cognitive Linguistics 93, 283-314. McNeill,
David (ed.) 2000. Language and gesture.
Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
76
41 Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From
etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge Cambridge
University Press. _______. Regular metaphoricity
in gesture bodily-based models of speech
interaction. In Actes du 16e Congrès
International des Linguistes (CD-ROM), Elsevier
(1998). Taub, Sarah. 2001. Language from the
Body. Cambridge University Press. Traugott,
Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic
meanings in English. Language
5733-65. _______. 1995. Subjectification in
grammaticalization. In Dieter Stein and Susan
Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation
in Language. Cambridge Cambridge University
Press. Pp. 31-54. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and
Richard Dasher. In press. Regularity in
Semantic Change. Webb, Rebecca. 1996,
Linguistic features of metaphoric gestures.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester.
About PowerShow.com