Interactive gestures

Bavelas, Janet Beavin; Chovil, Nicole; Lawrie, Douglas A.; Wade, Allan

doi:10.1080/01638539209544823

Cited by 288 publications

(182 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

151

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Then, functions of these non-linguistic resources were categorised following previous studies on gestures. Four categories define the model of analysis: referential when the kinesic feature represents any aspect of the content of the utterance (Kendon, 2004); cohesive when kinesics links part of the discourse (McNeill, 1992); interactive when used to maintain interaction rather than to convey meaning (Bavelas et al, 1992); and pragmatic which, in turn, can be performative showing the speech act, modal showing how the utterance is interpreted, and parsing showing punctuation in discourse (Kendon, 2004). Furthermore, evaluation was also interpreted in pragmatic terms where politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987) In this article, we illustrate the results of the study with the analysis of the reaction of the presenter to the discussant's question in a single dialogic exchange.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multimodal evaluation in academic discussion sessions: How do presenters act and react?

Querol-Julián¹,

Fortanet-Gómez²

2012

English for Specific Purposes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation in academic discourse has received considerable attention from researchers.Much of the work on evaluation has focused, however, on written genres, and less attention has been paid to how evaluation unfolds in spoken academic genres. In our present research, we are interested in disclosing how the interpersonal meaning of evaluation is expressed in the discussion session (hereafter DS) that follows conference paper presentations, since DS has already been defined as an "evaluative forum", when comparing its phraseological patterns with those of the presentation.Though the study of evaluation in spoken genres has been developed focusing exclusively on linguistic aspects, we assume the non-linguistic message that accompanies the linguistic message has an effect on the interpersonal meaning of the communication. Therefore, the aim of our research is to analyse the evaluative meaning conveyed in DSs that follow paper presentations in an applied linguistics conference. In the study, we draw on a social semiotic theory of language and of kinesics and paralanguage to frame a multimodal exploration of this interpersonal meaning. The comparative analysis between linguistic evaluation and multimodal evaluation reveals the significant contribution of non-linguistics features, which are commonly used to intensify linguistic evaluation or to express the speakers' attitude.Key words: discussion sessions, multimodal discourse analysis, conference paper presentations, evaluation, spoken academic discourse, discourse analysis IntroductionConference presentations are one of the first challenges a researcher has to face in his or her career, due to the complexity and inter-relationships between the speech events involved in it. This challenge becomes even more relevant for the non-native speaker when the presentation and the discussion session following it have to be done in 1 querolm@gmail.com 2 fortanet@uji.es English. One of the most complete studies of the genre of conference presentations is that of Räisänen (1999), which situates the conference paper presentation as part of a genre chain. This chain starts with the call for abstracts in a conference and ends either with the oral presentation during the conference or with the publication of the proceedings. This author (1999, p.69) defines conferences as "sites for publishing research results and an open ground for confrontation, discussion, and ratification of meaning". Conference presentations are meant to provide a forum to promote interaction between scholars. It is also important to note the complexity of conference discourse. Ventola (1999) coined the term 'semiotic spanning' to acknowledge the involvement of all modes of communication: written as well as spoken texts, visual materials and actions, among others; they all form a cohesive communication event. She points out that the relationship between all speech events, between the paper presentation and its source materials as well as between the presentation and the final version of the paper, as pub...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multimodal evaluation in academic discussion sessions: How do presenters act and react?

Querol-Julián¹,

Fortanet-Gómez²

2012

English for Specific Purposes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Let us now consider S-points within a broader category of secondary pointing utterances reported in other studies. Bavelas et al (1992) describe a type of gesture called ''citing'', one of a number of gestures they label ''interactive'', since these gestures function to manage the interpersonal/interactional context of speech. This type of gesture is familiar to us (the authors) from everyday life, for instance in scientific discussion: a speaker proffers a small pointing gesture, formally identical to the Lao S-points described above, in the direction of someone present, while offering a comment which makes reference to something this person has previously or elsewhere said independently.…”

Section: A Broader Consideration Of ''Secondary Pointing'' Phenomenamentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary and secondary pragmatic functions of pointing gestures

Enfield

Kita

Ruiter

2007

Journal of Pragmatics

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a study of a set of pointing gestures produced together with speech in a corpus of video-recorded ''locality description'' interviews in rural Laos. In a restricted set of the observed gestures (we did not consider gestures with special hand shapes, gestures with arc/tracing motion, or gestures directed at referents within physical reach), two basic formal types of pointing gesture are observed: Bpoints (large movement, full arm, eye gaze often aligned) and S-points (small movement, hand only, casual articulation). Taking the approach that speech and gesture are structurally integrated in composite utterances, we observe that these types of pointing gesture have distinct pragmatic functions at the utterance level. One type of gesture (usually ''big'' in form) carries primary, informationally foregrounded information (for saying ''where'' or ''which one''). Infants perform this type of gesture long before they can talk. The second type of gesture (usually ''small'' in form) carries secondary, informationally backgrounded information which responds to a possible but uncertain lack of referential common ground. We propose that the packaging of the extra locational information into a casual gesture is a way of adding extra information to an utterance without it being on-record that the added information was necessary. This is motivated by the conflict between two general imperatives of communication in social interaction: a social-affiliational imperative not to provide more information than necessary (''Don't over-tell''), and an informational imperative not to provide less information than necessary (''Don't under-tell''). #

show abstract

“…Dans la littérature, quelques études montrent l'importance de la visibilité du destinataire sur la production gestuelle des locuteurs (Alibali, Heath et Myers, 2001 ;Bavelas, 1994 ;Bavelas, Chovil, Lawrie et Wade, 1992 ;Bavelas, Gerwing, Sutton et Prevost, 2007 ;Cohen, 1977;Cohen et Harrisson, 1973;Emmorey et Casey, 2001 ;Krauss, Dushay, Chen et Rauscher, 1995 ;Rimé, 1982). La visibilité a non seulement un effet sur la proportion des gestes mais également sur le type de gestes produits ce qui confirme la théorie de Kendon (1987) selon laquelle les conditions de transmission ont un impact aussi bien sur les unités linguistiques que sur les unités gestuelles.…”

Section: La Condition De Passation : L'effet De La Visibilitéunclassified

“…De plus, au travers des études (sur des adultes) citées précédemment, les auteurs montrent que les gestes n'ont pas tous les mêmes fonctions (Alibali et al 2001 ;Bavelas, 1994 ;Bavelas et al , 1992 ;Bavelas et al, 2007 ;Cohen, 1977;Cohen et Harrisson, 1973;Emmorey et Casey, 2001 ;Krauss et al, 1995 ;Rimé, 1982). Ceci va dans le sens d'autres analyses qui révèlent que les gestes peuvent aussi bien aider à l'élaboration du message par le locuteur qu'à la compréhension du message par l'interlocuteur adultes (Kita, 2000 ;Kita et Özyürek, 2003ou encore Kita et al, 2007.…”

Section: La Condition De Passation : L'effet De La Visibilitéunclassified

“…D'autres auteurs avant nous, se concentrant sur l'analyse de production d'adultes, en sont arrivés à une conclusion similaire selon laquelle la visibilité aurait un effet sur la production des gestes (Alibali et al, 2001 ;Bavelas, 1994 ;Bavelas et al, 1992 ;Bavelas et al, 2007 ;Cohen, 1977;Cohen et Harrisson, 1973;Emmorey et Casey, 2001 ;Krauss et al, 1995 ;Rimé, 1982) : le locuteur ne fait pas les mêmes gestes et ne produit pas une même proportion de gestes selon qu'il est face à son interlocuteur ou qu'il ne l'est pas. Les adultes, lorsque s'ils sont face à face avec leur interlocuteur : (a) produisent plus des gestes « illustratifs » dans une tâche de donner des directions spatiales (Cohen, 1977 ;Cohen et Harrisson, 1973) ; (b) produisent plus de gestes « communicatifs » lors de tâches d'opinion sur des films (Rimé, 1982) ; (c) font plus de gestes « intertactifs » lors d'une tâche de narration personnelle (Bavelas et al, 1992) ; (d) ont une proportion plus importante de gestes lors d'une tâche de descriptions de graphiques (Krauss et al, 1995) ; (e) produisent plus de gestes représentationnels lors d'une tâche de rappel d'un dessin-animé (Alibali et al, 2001) ou (f) produisent d'une manière général plus de gestes (Emmorey & Casey, 2001) lorsqu'ils sont séparés de leurs interlocuteurs (que ce soit par un moyen technologique comme l'interphone telles les études de Cohen (1977), Cohen et Harrisson (1973), Krauss et al (1995) ou par un rideau (ou autre) telles les études de Alibali et al (2001), Bavelas et al (1992), Emmorey & Cassey (2001), Rimé (1982)).…”

Section: Quelle Fonction Pour Quel Type De Geste ?unclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation