What We Know People Know About Gesture Barbara Kelly and Lauren Gawne University of Melbourne

Prior Research Kendon (1978) - Native English speakers watching silent film of narrative by PNG man. - Asked to recall movements they observed. Morris, Collett, Marsh & O'Shaughnessy (1979) - Survey of emblematic gestures across Europe. - Speakers asked to give meaning.

Continuum of Gesture Kendon's Continuum Gesticulation -> Pantomime -> Emblem -> Sign Language (McNeill 1992, p. 37)

Categories of Gesture Iconic – refer to concrete objects Metaphoric – refer to abstract concepts Deictic – referring, 'pointing' Beats – emphatic, bi-phasal (McNeill 1992, 2005; Kendon 2004)

The initial question Just what intuitions and ideas do people have about gesture?

Two Studies 1. Perception of number of gestures, with sound as a variable. Quantitative. (Gawne, Kelly and Unger 2010) 2. Perception and categorisation of gestures. Qualitative. (Gawne and Kelly, under review)

Stimulus – the video

Video data (52 seconds) - 10 gestures (iconic, deictic, beat, emblem) two of each type, except emblems with 2 hand and two head gestures of each. - 2 non-gesture movements Distributed evenly across the video.

Study one – Research questions RQ1) Is there concordance between gestures that analysts code as being important and gestures identified conversation participants? RQ2) What body movements and gestures do conversation participants orient to? RQ3) Does the presence of sound affect how people attend to gestural information?

Study one - Data 48 participants (17 male, 31 female) All native Australian English speakers Video data (52 seconds) internet-based survey, three stages - 50/50 sound and no sound - count total number of gestures - list five prototypical gestures

Study one - Results Is there concordance between the categories and gestures that analysts code as being important and gestures identified by participants? (RQ 1) Yes, but no Participants with sound counted an average of 15.6 gestures (s.d.= 5.4) compared to 10 for researchers

Study one - Results What body movements and gestures do conversation participants orient to? (RQ 2) Preference gestures with stable forms

Study one - Results Does the presence of sound affect how people attend to gestural information? (RQ 3) Yes Group with sound – mean 15.6 gestures (sd= 5.4) Group without sound – mean 16.9 gestures (sd=6.68) independent t-test, p = not significant

Study one - Results

Study two - Research questions RQ1) Are native speakers homogeneous in the way they categorise gesture? RQ2) How do native speaker categorisations of gesture compare to those established in gesture research?

Study two - Data 12 participants (7 male, 5 female) All native Australian English speakers year old, university educated Video data (52 seconds) Three stages of data collection - Survey, gave definition of gesture and categories - Count gestures in video and transcribe in ELAN - Revise gesture categories and post-hoc interview

Study two - Results Are native speakers homogeneous in the way they categorise gesture? (RQ 1) - Relatively homogeneous in terms of definition - In terms of categorisation a broad variety. Counted 9-31 and transcribed Those who had a broader understanding of communicative intent were more likely to transcribe a larger number of events.

Study two - Results How do native speaker categorisations of gesture compare to those established in gesture research? (RQ 2) - All but one speaker transcribed all 10 gestures. - 8 transcribed more, appear to have a broader understanding of gesture than specialists. - 4 participants transcribed gestures, so only slightly broader concept of gesture. - All but one participant transcribed the beat gesture as a single gesture event.

Study two - Results Category created by participants No. of participants who created it Facial expression5 Posture shift3 Nervous action2 Unconscious action2 Emotive body language1 Breathing1

Study two - Conclusions - While there appears to be a consistent definition of gesture by people it is not matched in categorisation or transcription. - Non-specialists have a broader understanding of communicative intent than specialists - Challenges Kendon's (1978) observation that native speakers' appear to have a common understanding of what counts as a ‘significant action.’

General conclusions Some unsurprising results: - Non-specialists have a wider understanding of what constitutes a gesture. - Non-specialists see a wide variety of actions contributing to meaning, not just gestures. - People orient towards gestures with culturally stable form.

General conclusions Some surprising results: - There does not appear to be a strong consistent understanding of ‘communicative intent’ for non- specialists. - People generally analyse beat gestures as a single event which matches researchers’ analysis.

What does this mean today? As analysts we need to be mindful of our categorical assumptions when we approach non-verbal communication.

References Gawne, L. and B. Kelly (under review). "What we know people know about gesture.” Gawne, L., B. Kelly, et al. (2010). Gesture categorisation and understanding speaker attention to gesture Selected papers from the 2009 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Y. Treis and R. De Busser. Melbourne. Kendon, A. (1978). "Differential perceptual and attentional frame in face-to-face interaction: two problems for investigation." Semiotica 24(3/4): McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Morris, D., P. Collett, et al. (1979). Gestures : their origins and distribution. London, Jonathan Cape.