Does language shape silent gesture

TL;DR: This review revisits the GSA framework’s six main predictions regarding gesture rates, gesture form, and the cognitive cost of inhibiting gesture and identifies key directions for future work on how gestures arise from an embodied mind.

TL;DR: A theoretical framework is set forth for exploring why gesture serves the functions that it does, and it is proposed that whether or not gesture is simulated action in terms of its mechanism––it is clearly not reducible to action in Terms of its function.

TL;DR: This paper studied 10 Turkish-English bilingual adults (Turkish as L1) in comparison to 10 monolingual English and 10 Turkish adults as they described motion events either in speech with gesture (co-speech gesture) or only in gesture without speech (silent gesture).

TL;DR: This article examined native Farsi speakers' speech and gestures in describing 20 motion events, focusing on two motion event components: path (trajectory of motion like up) and manner (how the action is performed like jumping).

TL;DR: It is argued that researchers using LMEMs for confirmatory hypothesis testing should minimally adhere to the standards that have been in place for many decades, and it is shown thatLMEMs generalize best when they include the maximal random effects structure justified by the design.

TL;DR: The core computational algorithms are implemented using the Eigen C++ library for numerical linear algebra and RcppEigen``glue''.

TL;DR: McNeill et al. as mentioned in this paper argue that gestures do not simply form a part of what is said and meant but have an impact on thought itself, and that gestures are global, synthetic, idiosyncratic, and imagistic.

Abstract: The argument of this original and difficult book is that “gestures are an integral part of language as much as are words, phrases and sentences-gestures and language are one system” (p. 2) . Gestures are instantaneous, imagistic, analog, holistic expressions of the same thought that speech renders in hierarchical, linear, digital, analytic form. David McNeill credits Adam Kendon (1972, 1980) with discovering the link between, and essential unity of, speech sounds and gestural movements; his own work elaborates this insight at the higher linguistic levels of semantics and pragmatics. The topic of the book, then, is gestures that accompany speech, the left-hand end of what McNeill calls “ K e n h i ’ s coiitiiiiiiim: Gesticulation + Language-like gestures + Pantomimes 3 Emblems + Sign languages” (p. 37). The continuum ranges from the informal, spontaneous, idiosyncratic movements of the hands and arms that often accompany speech, to the socially-regulated, standardized, linguistic forms of a sign language, with its arbitrary (non-iconic) lexicon. Between these poles the obligatory presence of speech declines and the linguistic properties of gestures increase. “Language-like gestures” are grammatically integrated into an utterance, as when a speaker, asked about the weather on his vacation, replies: “Well, it was [oscillating hand gesture]”, where the “so-so” gesture replaces an adjectival predicate. “Pantomime” conveys its full meaning in silence or, at most, with inarticulate onomatopoeia; also, in pantomime, sequences of gestures can form a unit, as they can in a sign language, but cannot in gesticulation. “Emblems” conform to standards of wellformedness, a language-like property that gesticulation and pantomime lack: in England, the palm-front V-sign is Churchill’s “Victory!”, the palm-back V-sign is a sexual insult. (For an amusing cross-class confusion in emblem dialects, see Collett, Marsh, and O’Shaughnessy, 1979, p. 229, where Margaret Thatcher appears in an Associated Press Photo, making the palm-back V-sign at a moment of electoral triumph.) The contrast between the two ends of Kendon’s continuum, between spontaneous gesture and conventional sign, epitomizes McNeill’s notion of the process by which an utterance evolves in a speaker’s mind. Spontaneous gesture reveals the primitive stage of an utterance, global, unsegmented, non-hierarchical, from which its conventional representation in speech unfolds: hierarchical, segmented, linear. The inner symbols of the primitive stage are private, idiosyncratic, closed to social influence; the end stage is public, grammatical, socially regulated. McNeill supposes that the primitive