Uttering Sentences Made Up of Words and Gestures

Brabanter, Philippe De

doi:10.1057/9780230292352_13

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Agreeing with this body of work, we do not view non-linguistic means of communication-raised eyebrows, grunts, pointing and so on-as somehow derivative or impoverished relative to language (McNeill 2005;Kendon 2004;Scott-Phillips 2015a;Wharton 2009;Wharton 2016;Brabanter 2010;Tomasello 2010). Rather, we turn that picture on its head, seeing human communication as a family of different means of expression, all of which are inherently contextual and underdetermined, albeit to different degrees in each case.…”

Section: Interpretation In the Roundmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Art Experience

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Art theory has consistently emphasised the importance of situational, cultural, institutional and historical factors in viewers' experience of fine art. However, the link between this heavily context-dependent interpretation and the workings of the mind is often left unexamined. Drawing on relevance theory-a prominent, cogent and productive body of work in cognitive pragmatics-we here argue that fine art achieves its effects by prompting the use of cognitive processes that are more commonly employed in the interpretation of words and other stimuli presented in a communicative context. We describe in particular how institutional factors effectively co-opt these processes for new ends, allowing viewers to achieve cognitive effects that they otherwise would not, and so provide cognitivist backing for an Institutional Theory of Art, such as that put forward by Arthur Danto (1964). More generally, we situate and describe the Western fine art tradition as a phenomenon that is a consequence of both the cognitive processes involved in communication, and of cultural norms, practices and institutions.

show abstract

Section: Interpretation In the Roundmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Art Experience

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this form of communication, implicatures are not just derived by the addressee from combining explicatures, cognitive environment, and awareness of the sender's goals, but can also be triggered by the sender's intonation, facial expression (see de Brabanter 2010), and body posture, as well as the spatio-temporal circumstances in which the exchange takes place. When sender and addresser are no longer in the same space (as in telephone conversations) or time-frame (as in voice-mail messages), this inevitably affects what is, and is not, possible in the communication between them.…”

Section: Relevance Is Always Relevance To An Individualmentioning

confidence: 99%

2. Relevance Theory as model for analysing visual and multimodal communication

Forceville¹

2014

Visual Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In some cases, a gesture can replace rather than enrich a word (e.g. Slama-Cazacu 1976, Clark 1996, De Brabanter 2010. We call such expressions 'pro-speech gestures' (with pro meaning: 'replacing', as in pronoun and proconsul), and we argue that they should play a systematic role in gesture studies, for three reasons: (i) they enrich the typology of iconic inferences; (ii) they provide a way to create words 'on the fly', and thus to test how some inferences, notably presuppositions, are generated in the first place; (iii) in some limited cases, they make it possible to replicate within spoken language some properties of sign language.…”

Section: Pro-speech Gesturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iconic pragmatics

Schlenker

2017

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent comparative semantics suggests that sign language makes use of the same logical resources as spoken language, but has richer mechanisms of iconic enrichment. It is often thought that when speech is analyzed in tandem with iconic gestures, 'expressive parity' is regained between speech and sign. But this comparison between sign-with-iconicity and speech-with-gestures turns out to be complex because iconic enrichments often have a non-at-issue status, as attested by their interaction with logical operators. We argue that the status of iconic enrichments is constrained by two parameters: ±internal, ±separate_time_slot. If an enrichment is effected by the internal modification of an expression (+internal) -e.g. by lengthening the word loooong in English, or the sign GROW in ASL -it can have any semantic status and can in particular be atissue. If an enrichment is an external addition to an expression (-internal) -as is the case of co-speech gestures in English -it does not make an at-issue contribution, but it may have the status of a presupposition or of a supplement. If an enrichment has a separate time slot (+separate_time_slot), it may not be trivial (= presupposed), and must thus be at-issue or supplemental. The generalization is assessed on the basis of vocal iconicity in spoken language, iconic modulations in sign language, co-speech/co-sign as well as postspeech/post-sign gestures and facial expressions in spoken and sign language, and also gestures that fully replace words in spoken language. Our typology suggests that there are systematic expressive differences between sign-with-iconicity and speech-with-gestures, and also that the semantic status of iconic enrichments can in part be predicted by parameters pertaining to their form.

show abstract

Uttering Sentences Made Up of Words and Gestures

Cited by 12 publications

References 15 publications

The Art Experience

The Art Experience

2. Relevance Theory as model for analysing visual and multimodal communication

Iconic pragmatics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About