Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Foreground gesture, background gesture
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Do speakers intend their gestures to communicate? Central as this question is to the study of gesture, researchers cannot seem to agree on the answer. According to one common framing, gestures are an “unwitting” window into the mind (McNeill, 1992); but, according to another common framing, they are designed along with speech to form “composite utterances” (Enfield, 2009). These two framings correspond to two cultures within gesture studies – the first cognitive and the second interactive in orientation – and they appear to make incompatible claims. In this article I attempt to bridge the cultures by developing a distinction between foreground gestures and background gestures. Foreground gestures are designed in their particulars to communicate a critical part of the speaker’s message; background gestures are not designed in this way. These are two fundamentally different kinds of gesture, not two different ways of framing the same monolithic behavior. Foreground gestures can often be identified by one or more of the following hallmarks: they are produced along with demonstratives; they are produced in the absence of speech; they are co-organized with speaker gaze; and they are produced with conspicuous effort. The distinction between foreground and background gestures helps dissolve the apparent tension between the two cultures: interactional researchers have focused on foreground gestures and elevated them to the status of a prototype, whereas cognitive researchers have done the same with background gestures. The distinction also generates a number of testable predictions about gesture production and understanding, and it opens up new lines of inquiry into gesture across child development and across cultures.
Title: Foreground gesture, background gesture
Description:
Abstract
Do speakers intend their gestures to communicate? Central as this question is to the study of gesture, researchers cannot seem to agree on the answer.
According to one common framing, gestures are an “unwitting” window into the mind (McNeill, 1992); but, according to another common framing, they are designed along with speech to form “composite utterances” (Enfield, 2009).
These two framings correspond to two cultures within gesture studies – the first cognitive and the second interactive in orientation – and they appear to make incompatible claims.
In this article I attempt to bridge the cultures by developing a distinction between foreground gestures and background gestures.
Foreground gestures are designed in their particulars to communicate a critical part of the speaker’s message; background gestures are not designed in this way.
These are two fundamentally different kinds of gesture, not two different ways of framing the same monolithic behavior.
Foreground gestures can often be identified by one or more of the following hallmarks: they are produced along with demonstratives; they are produced in the absence of speech; they are co-organized with speaker gaze; and they are produced with conspicuous effort.
The distinction between foreground and background gestures helps dissolve the apparent tension between the two cultures: interactional researchers have focused on foreground gestures and elevated them to the status of a prototype, whereas cognitive researchers have done the same with background gestures.
The distinction also generates a number of testable predictions about gesture production and understanding, and it opens up new lines of inquiry into gesture across child development and across cultures.
Related Results
On Flores Island, do "ape-men" still exist? https://www.sapiens.org/biology/flores-island-ape-men/
On Flores Island, do "ape-men" still exist? https://www.sapiens.org/biology/flores-island-ape-men/
<span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:#f9f9f4"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><spa...
Gesture Interaction Preference of Healthy APP for Elderly Users
Gesture Interaction Preference of Healthy APP for Elderly Users
Purpose: With the increase in the number of elderly people, the social problems of aging are becoming more and more prominent, and the consumption for the elderly is forming a larg...
Language Is Gesture
Language Is Gesture
A new way of viewing language, as a dynamic mode of meaning-making of which gesture is a fundamental part.
When David McNeill began his work on gesture more than for...
Dynamic Gesture Recognition Based on iCPM and RNN
Dynamic Gesture Recognition Based on iCPM and RNN
Abstract
Aim to solve the problem that continuous complex actions are difficult to be recognized by computer vision technology in actual production, this paper colle...
Elements of Meaning in Gesture
Elements of Meaning in Gesture
Summarizing her pioneering work on the semiotic analysis of gestures in conversational settings, Geneviève Calbris offers a comprehensive account of her unique perspective on the r...
Self-Coronation
Self-Coronation
Abstract
Mathura's Hindu art opens with two deities performing a gesture I have named “the self-coronation gesture”; it has no antecedents in Indian art or texts. Śi...
Multiscale Wavelet Feature Extraction Integrated with CNN for Improved Gesture Prediction
Multiscale Wavelet Feature Extraction Integrated with CNN for Improved Gesture Prediction
Abstract
This study focuses on the application of multiscale wavelet analysis to hand gesture recognition. A crucial component of human-computer interaction, hand gesture r...
Real-Time Human Pose Estimation and Gesture Recognition from Depth Images Using Superpixels and SVM Classifier
Real-Time Human Pose Estimation and Gesture Recognition from Depth Images Using Superpixels and SVM Classifier
In this paper, we present human pose estimation and gesture recognition algorithms that use only depth information. The proposed methods are designed to be operated with only a CPU...


