Contents
1. What Is Gesture?
REAL ACT AND GESTURE
Gesture is seen accompanying speech. Man makes gestures without speech
also. Gesture is symbolic action by which a thought, a feeling, or intention
is voluntarily expressed in a conventionalized (established by general
agreement/acceptance, or accepted usage) form.
Gesture is different from the real act. For example, the real act of
drinking when performed for a drinking purpose is action per se,
whereas, when the act of drinking is mimicked, or performed symbolically
as in the case of Holy Communion in the Christian Church, it becomes
a gesture.
The real act of smoking is action, whereas, the movements that one makes as
if one is smoking is gesture. In the examples given, there is some similarity
between real acts and the "gestures" that indicate these real acts.
There are very many instances in which gestures do not have any similarity
between themselves and the acts or objects they stand for.
For instance, in the sign language used by the Red Indians (American
Indians), the sign of or a laddle, which is made keeping the palm curved
like a laddle, comes to denote drinking and from this meaning it ultimately
stands for 'water'. There is no similarity between 'water' and this
gesture. Thus, the gestures become not only conventionalized, but could
also be holding a relationship of arbitrariness between themselves and
the acts and objects they refer to.
GESTURES ARE FORMED BY MOVEMENTS
Gestures are formed by movements of the facial muscles, head, limbs
or body. These movements may express or emphasize a thought, feeling,
or mood. They may accompany speech or may be used in the place of speech
as found among deaf-mutes, among people who do not know each other's
language, or among those who have taken a vow of silence and so on.
In addition to their use as an accompaniment to speech and their use
as an independent means of communication (in place of language) between
individuals and groups, gestures are also frequently used in the aesthetic
acts, in the theatre and dance, and in religious and/or secular ceremonies.
SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF GESTURE
There are at least three major divisions--use of gesture as an accompaniment
to oral language; use of gesture by itself as the language, as in the
case of deaf-mutes; use of gesture as an independent means of communication,
an addition to the use of oral language, as in the case of sign language
used by American Indians.
There is also another category in which use of gesture either as an
accompaniment to oral speech or as an independent system of expression
is elevated to the aesthetic level and is exploited in aesthetic arts.
Finally, use of gesture in all the above is resorted to for both social
purposes and purely individual goals.
Within the realm of social purposes, use of gesture for expression
relates to establishment of interpersonal ranking, good manners, communication/communion
with gods, maintenance of social identity, etc.
The purely individual goals include maintenance and exhibition of the level
of intimacy between individuals, secret communication, etc. While these
are exploited at the aesthetic levels, use of gesture itself in the
aesthetic arts not only accentuates the effects, but also creates and
maintains the effects; in other words, it conducts the episodes in several
cases.
Gesture is, indeed, present and exploited in every walk of human life.
Poyotos' definition of gesture (Poyotos, 1975) brings out the salient
features of gestures clearly:
By gesture, one understands a conscious or unconscious body movement
made mainly with the head, the face alone, or the limbs, learned or
somatogenic, and serving as a primary communicative tool, dependent
or independent from verbal language; either simultaneous or alternating
with it, and modified by the conditioning background (smiles, eye movements,
a gesture of beckoning, a tic, etc.).
GESTURE IN LITERARY WORKS
Gesture is characterized in literature in very many different ways.
Each one of these characterizations focuses on one or another aspect
of gesture. Gesture is described as follows:
- It is a silent language.
- It is talk without talk.
- It mother utterance of nature.
- It is natural.
- It is universal.
- It is figurative.
- It is picturesque.
- It has clarity.
- It has picturesque novelty.
- It is metaphorical.
- It is poetic nature.
- It is iconic.
- It is pantomimic.
- It is cheiromimic.
- It is affective.
- It is a surrogate for spoken language.
- It is a substitute for spoken language.
- It is a lexical ideogreph.
- It is speech by gesture (gesture speech of mankind).
- It is visual language.
- It consists of the visual attitudes of the soul.
- It is innate language.
- It is an air picture.
- It is an essential adjunct to human language.
- It is a great human accomplishment.
- It is hand talk.
- It is syntalk.
THE BODY PARTS USED IN MAKING GESTURES
The body parts and other items of processes that are generally involved
in the production and communication of gestures are as follows:
- Face
- Head
- Eyes
- Ears
- Skin
- Breath
- Mouth
- Lips
- Palm
- Hands
- Fingers
- Tongue
- Chin
- Cheeks
- Moustache
- Chest
- Breast
- Place of heart
- Arms
- Elbows
- Hair
- Forehead
- Throat
- Nose
- Legs
- Shoulder
- Back
- Torso
It is the upper extremities of the body that are more frequently used for the production and communication of gestures. Utilization of the back of the body is rare and when the back is used, the gesturer would turn and present the back to the one being addressed to make the gesture seen.
VARIABLES EMPLOYED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GESTURES
There are at least three variables employed in the production of gestures
involving these body parts. The body parts may be combined with one
another or may be used individually. Some body parts are more frequently
used and/or combined. Thirdly, the gestures are more generally produced
clearly away from the body rather than on the body itself.
GESTURING BY ANIMALS
Since gesturing is a communication mode, we find that animals also
have some sort of gesturing mechanisms. From ants to highly developed
vertebrates, all exhibit the ability to produce and functionally use
gestures.
They make signs for various purposes: to mark their geographical territory,
possessions, and even to communicate their 'mental' states. The wagging
of tail by dogs of all kinds, signs by pointer dogs, the begging for
food by various kinds of dogs, the signs made by cats, horses, and other
animals are all familiar to us.
The dance of the bees for communication is another well-known phenomenon. However, there is a qualitative difference between the gestures of animals and the gestures of humans. The gestural communication in the humans is a product of and a stage in the development of expressive motions.
COMPLEXITY OF GESTURES IN HUMAN COMMUNICATION
It is a specifically human product in several ways. The gestures in
humans reveal a variety of complex structures that is not found in animals.
In humans there is the simple indicative gesture with great many functions;
there are both imitative and symbolic gestures, some very close to the
shape or function of the object and event they denote, and some very
much removed from the object and event they connote.
There is symbolic meaning, there is the extension of meaning of one gesture to another, there is also the internal extension of the meanings of a particular gesture; there is arbitrariness in addition to conventionality; there is also a 'syntactic' order governed by certain rules.
All these are not found in the gestures of animals. The gestures of
the animals are very much linked with their biological and routine needs,
whereas, the gestures in man, along with the biological and routine
needs, are also elevated into a system fulfilling certain poetic and
social functions in human life.
GESTURES ARE AS NATURAL AS HUMAN SPEECH
Gestures are as natural as human speech. They precede human speech, in the
ontogeny of language, coexist with human speech and continue to be in
existence and use even when the human speech is lost in the individual.
In their phylogeny, one finds gestures in some form or another among
all animals, performing the function of both individual and social steering
mechanisms, and also gestures appear to have preceded vocal language
in the phylogeny of communication systems.
A child starts employing gestures much earlier than her use of language; the early stages of language acquisition does in fact consist in the acquisition of a variety of communicative 'gestures' that cannot be clearly distinguished as completely vocal. While vocabulary choice, in later years, is and could be taught, instruction in the comprehension and use of gestures is generally minimal, most societies taking these as more natural than speech and leaving these to be mastered unaware. Their (the societies') function is seen more in reshaping the 'natural' gestures, to keep these under some social regulation rather than teaching the gestures, per se.
REGULATION AND SUPPRESSION OF GESTURES - EARLY FEATURES
Regulation and suppression appear to be crucial processes in so far
as the use of gestures is concerned. The child is governed in her early
attempts at communication more by the gestures and facial expressions
of the caregivers than by the vocal language of the latter.
The gesture-like elements of oral speech, such as the tone of voice
and intonation patterns, come to aid the child in its comprehension
slowly. This recovery of information via gestures continues all through
life, and where speech is proscribed, or is not yet made when the interaction
begins between two individuals, or when the interactants are unable
to use speech, it is the gestural expressions that reveal the state
in which the interactants are placed.
In the most intimate moments, speech takes a back seat and gesture has the total control. Also when an individual has not the particular word at his command at a particular moment in his own language, he resorts to gesture. He may resort to gesture for effects as well, even when he has the word.
Second language learners and users, and those who are placed in an
environment where they do not know the language or know it only partly,
often resort to gestural communication, in a very natural manner.
REPLY TO GESTURES THROUGH GESTURES
When a gesture is made, more often than not, we tend to reply to it
in some appropriate gesture, rather than in speech. We switch over to
gestural communication, on our own, when we start conversing with the
deaf and dumb. We may have never done it before; we may have never used
gestures under such contexts, but, in spite of the novelty of the situation,
we do choose signs that are in some way concrete and picturesque.
EMERGENCE OF GESTURES
We try to interpret the sign language of the deaf-mutes also based
on the assumed similarity of the outlines they make with the objects
around and/or objects known to us. People disordered from their normal
status or those congenitally disordered, and have disabilities of various
sorts are also known to engage themselves in some sort of gestural communication.
When individuals remain in solitary confinement, either voluntarily
or by force, or by forces of circumstances, often they start communication
via gestures when they come out of their solitary confinement. The individuals
who have lost their speech (the aphasics) are known to use gestures
for communication. Thus, there is some gestural communication potential
in every one of us latent and ready to be used as and when the occasion
arises.
HOW GESTURES ARE RETAINED
Gestures are found in all cultures and in all the stages of growth
of cultures. Secondly, gestures are found used by the disordered people
also. Thirdly, even when the language is lost, as in aphasic conditions,
people do use gestures for communication. Fourthly, gesture is used
by the congenital deaf-mutes who are not exposed to language at all.
Thus, gesture may accompany speech or may be used as a communication
mode independently, and is found in all people. While gestural communication,
thus, is found among all people, social conventions regulate the quantum,
quality, the frequency, and the contexts of occurrence of gestures.
SOCIAL USAGE OF GESTURE
In some societies, gesturing is associated with lower social status;
in some societies, if gesturing is not made, communication is not considered
spirited and appropriate. Education and higher social status require
measured tones, clear utterances, soft voice and less gesturing in many
Indian societies. Imitation of another's idiosyncratic behavior is allowed
in the absence of the other for ridicule, humor, and identity purposes.
In the presence of the individual who is imitated, imitation is generally
frowned upon, especially when such imitations provoke laughter in others.
Demonstrative gestures (indicating objects and individuals, who are
placed away from the interactants) are avoided. Children are advised
to avoid using gestures while talking. Man has assigned differential
functions for both oral language and gesture in his communication activities.
We shall see the details as we proceed. It is sufficient here to state
that, in humans, gestures get very much involved in the conduct of social
behavior.
CONTENTS PAGE
2. Processes of Gesturing
GESTURES ACCOMPANYING SPEECH
When gestures accompany speech, they may or may not convey specific
meanings. Many individuals have the habit of exhibiting gestures which
may have no meaning in themselves or bear any meaningful relation to
the utterances in speech.
These generally have the function of indicating that a speech utterance
is in progress. These individuals will use some gestural movement or
another whenever they speak.
The vast majority of us do this without being aware of the gestural
motions we make. In another dimension, when gestures accompany speech,
they may have the function of supporting the meanings conveyed by an
utterance in speech or may even express a meaning which will be deliberately
left out by the utterance in speech, to be expressed only by the gestural
expression.
In addition, a gestural motion or a series of gestural motions alone
may form the 'utterance' in a communication, with speech playing no
part at all. That is, the speech is absent and the communication is
carried on only with and by the gestural motions.
FORMS OF GESTURES THAT CONVEY MEANINGS OF THEIR OWN
In the categories where gestural motions do convey a meaning of their
own, the processes of gesturing take several forms. We give below some
of the forms that are generally identified in Indian contexts:
1. Indication by gesturing at the object. We point at
the object, we indicate the cardinal directions, regions, body parts,
colors, personal, and demonstrative pronouns using this process. These
objects are generally present everywhere. Indication is a very basic
gesture and is a very useful and effective process for identification.
This basic gesture is not found in most animals, perhaps because the
gesture requires some cognitive identification skill, although the process
of gesturing itself is made simple by the physical presence of objects
indicated. Note further that both at the religious and social levels,
gesturing at is very much regulated and kept under control. We have
already pointed out how the socialization processes in Indian contexts
insist on children producing their speech utterances without resorting
to gesture at objects they try to refer to in their speech utterance.
Gesturing at someone or some object is taboo in certain ritual practices,
whereas gesturing at as a process is considered showing
disrespect to the individual gestured at, at the social level of interaction.
In some Indian languages, including Tamil, there is a parallel to this
in the speech wherein the superior is expected to be 'addressed' not
in the second person, but in the third person, converting the pronoun
of reference in the particular context into a pronoun of address. The
second person pronoun has the function of gesturing at, indicating at
the individual directly, whereas the third person pronoun has only the
function of reference. Since gesturing at/indicating at is showing disrespect,
even the speech utterances demand that a pronoun of reference (3rd person)
and not a pronoun of address (2nd person) be used when the superiors
are 'addressed'. This is prevalent in most Indian communities.
2. Indication at or gesturing at the locality of occurrence.
For thinking we indicate at the head; for love, we gesture at the place
where the heart is located. In these cases gesturing at the supposed
place of occurrence of an act comes to indicate the act itself.
3. Outlining an object. We draw the outlines of an object,
or a part of the object by our gesture in air or on some surface. This
gesture communicates successfully what is intended if both the interactants
are already familiar with the object. There are also outlines drawn
in a conventional and arbitrary manner that may not bear any similitude
to the object in reality. In aesthetic arts, a mix of categories is
used. The same object may be outlined in different ways in different
cultures; also the choice of the feature or features that will be outlined
differs from one culture to another, on the one hand, and from one individual
to another within the same culture, on the other hand.
Also note that the completion of the outline may or may not be required
-- at times even a few steps in the outlining process will be enough
for the other interactant to fully comprehend the meaning of the outline
in process. As already pointed out, one may either draw a whole outline
of the object in the air, or draw an outline of the characteristic part
of the object.
Even in the case of drawing the outline for the whole object, the outline
drawn in the air may focus only on the characteristic shape of the object
and not on all its details. The distinguishing marks will be focused
even when the object is fully drawn.
There is yet another subcategory within the process of outlining. A
distinguishing part of the action is generally imitated and produced
and this distinguishing imitation stands for the entire action.
4. Imitation of action. We may mimic or imitate the action,
motion, etc., of an object. Beckoning with hands/ fingers is made. The
fingers/hands gesture to the individual addressed indicates a request
to come towards the individual making the gesture.
5. Substitution. A body part, for example, the fingers, forehand,
etc., is used as a substitute for the object. The index fingers are
so placed on both sides of the head to indicate the horns. The forehand
is so hung that it represents the trunk of an elephant. The left hand
in a closed-fist fashion is kept by the hip and the right hand, again
in a closed fist fashion, is kept near the left hand to assume a posture
of holding a sword and its sheath.
6. Instrument imitation. The imitation of the action performed with an instrument communicates the meaning of the action intended. We can imitate the sawing action to convey the meaning of sawing. Swinging the sword in a fighting posture, holding the flag aloft, plucking fruits or flowers all can be mimicked.
7. Imitation of preparation process. We can also imitate the process of preparation. Often the process of preparation of tea in a tea stall, in particular the manner by which the tea maker mixes the brew with sugar and milk, is mimicked in plays. Preparation processes of several other items such as bread, roti, pots, cloth are all indicated by appropriate gestures which exhibit the processes at least partly.
8. The imitation of taste. By an appropriate facial expression, and exhibition of tongue, etc., the tastes are gestured. For example, the hot taste is gestured by keeping the mouth open and by letting the breath out through the mouth. While doing so the tongue is let hanging with a tinge of water. For the expression of sour taste, the cheeks are raised, wrinkles are made and the eyes are momentarily closed and opened. The teeth are also shown.
9. Imitation of posture and other conditions through substitution.
We may indicate the height and the erect posture of the objects also.
Erect index finger indicates a tall and erect object. An inclined index
finger indicates leaning, falling, etc. We may imitate the condition
of the object or the being. The size of the object is also indicated.
All this may be done either by direct mimicry or by substitution. In
the former, we act out the condition directly. For example, to indicate
an old man, we may walk with a hunch, leaning posture, pretending to
have a supporting stick in our hand. In the latter, the posture may
be enacted by our index finger, in which the index finger comes to represent
the old man by a process of substitution.
10. Imitation of counting. The processes of counting is imitated to gesture counting. The fingers in the left hand are touched by the finger/fingers in the right hand one by one to indicate the process. This gesturing is used to mean, not the actual numbers involved, but generally for the act of counting, and the overall numerous nature of/multiplicity of the act/object referred to.
11. Comparison by gesture. The relative position and movement of fingers are generally used for the purpose. The gesture by the gaps created between the two hands or fingers may indicate the size of the object. A tall finger by the side of a shorter finger will bring out the comparison; the heights may be indicated by the hands one after the other giving a comparison. The rapidity and slowness of motion performed by the gesturing part also brings out a contrast in the motions of actions.
12. Gesturing of repetitiveness. Repetition of the same gesture
several times indicates that the action that may be performed more than
once, in steps and/or in jerks. Rapidity or slowness of the repetition,
as well as the pauses in the repetition of the gesture, also add to
the demonstration of the repetitiveness of the action performed. Note
that a similar technique is adopted in the spoken language in the production
of utterances.
In addition, the spoken language also employs the process of reduplication
in which the whole or part of the word is repeated to demonstrate the
repetitiveness of action. Repetition of the gesture, as well as the
repetition of the word; is employed also for the collectivity of objects.
When the gesture for an object is repeated several times, the repetition
indicates that there are many objects of the same type; in other words,
it indicates the plural number of the same object. This is usually achieved
when the gesture is repeated, not in the same space, but in closely
adjacent space of demonstration in the air. When the gesture is repeated
in the same space with forward movements, it indicates that the objects
of the same species follow one another in succession, in a procession.
13. lmitation and addition of distinguishing marks. Along with the presentation
of an outline, one may also add certain distinguishing marks, marks
that would certainly distinguish the present object of gesture from
several other objects which may have some similar outline.
14. Sounds. Sounds can be used both as gestures in their own
right and as an accompaniment of some other gestures, elucidating the
meaning of the gestures they accompany. Snapping of the fingers and
the clapping of the hands come under the first category, whereas, the
sound that accompanies the gesture expressing the hotness of food just
eaten comes under the second category. The sounds of interjections also
come under this.
15. Gesturing at place of occurrence. In order to indicate the whiteness one may gesture at teeth.
16. In order to express complex ideas. The gesturer may combine one or more signs with another. This process is governed by several patterns:
- A generic sign may be combined with a specific sign to bring out
a combined meaning. Woman is expressed through a generic sign in American
sign language. This is combined with the specific sign for begging
to express the meaning for beggar women. Likewise, attributes of a
condition may be combined with the generic sign to express another
meaning of the condition. The sign for woman is combined with sign
for offspring to mean daughter. The sign for man is combined with
the sign for offspring to indicate son. The designation of birds,
flowers, and plants also are expressed through a combination of signs.
Note that this feature of combining a generic sign with an attributive
sign to derive new meanings is also found in oral language for several
words, and in the kinship terminology.
- While specifying a complex idea, the gesturer may use several signs
indicating several characteristics of the complex object/phenomenon.
To mean the paddy field, the square of the field, water, walking on
a bund (an embankment especially in India to control the flow of water),
and shortness of the plant may all be signed.
- Origin or source, and the use of the object for the object itself.
- Effects for causes.
- Drawing of the form of the object and indication of its use. A good
example in the American sign language is the sign for hospital, which
consists of the signs for house, sick, and many.
- Another method is to draw the outline of the object and indicate
the place where it is found. Horns drawn on the head gestures an animal.
The outline drawn in the air of the forest and the dancer making the
movements characteristic of the deer indicate the deer in the jungle.
- Shape and one or more specific marks may also be used.
- Way of using and specific marks of the objects.
- Another combination is shape, mode of using, and specific marks.
- End for which an object is used, or its make, and the place where
it is found.
- Place and specific mark.
- Place, manner of using, or mode of arrangement. For example, the
pantomime of putting on shoes or stockings indicates those articles.
- Negation of the reverse. Fool-no is wise; good-no is bad.
- Opposition. A principle of opposition as between right and left
hands, and between the thumb and forefinger and the little finger;
between loudness and softness; between rapidity and slowness; between
continuity and interruption/faltering and hesitation, etc., operates
in the signation of complex ideas as well as in depicting dynamic
(mobile) objects/events.
CONTENTS PAGE
3. Oral Language and Gesture Language
FOUR CATEGORIES OF GESTURES BASED ON THE CONTEXTS
We have already classified gestures into four major categories based
on the contexts of their occurrence:
- Occurrence of gestures designating that speech is in progress,
- Occurrence of gestures as a meaningful accompaniment to speech,
- Occurrence of gestures as an independent means of communication
whether the individuals have speech or not, and
- Occurrence of gesture in the deliberately elevated levels of performing
arts.
Note that, in all these categories of occurrence of gesture, even where
gestural communication is sought to be worked out as an independent
means of communication, as found among the Red Indians or Australian
aboriginals or among the deaf-mutes, there is always some correspondence
maintained between speech and gesture language.
While in the former the correspondence is manifest very often, in the
latter, the institutional languages of the deaf-mutes are based on oral
speech around them and are comprehended as such even by the deaf-mutes
in the course of time.
GESTURING IS INEVITABLE
Even where societies insist upon less gesturing as decent manners,
we find that the individuals, when excited, make use of their hands
in gesturing postures, whether such gesturing has any meaning or effect
for the addressed.
We clap our hands for approbation, rub our hands in delight, manipulate
our fingers while in a fidgety state, wring our hands in distress, raise
them in wonder and astonishment, snap the fingers for calling the attention
of the other, use the palm of the right hand for blessing, with index
finger erect and other fingers of the right hand forming a fist, we
warn others, we shrug the shoulders for showing that we are not responsible,
or that we don't know something, we wink at others in collusion and
glare at others and exchange meaningful, understanding, and conspiratorial
looks and connivance.
We raise our brow in frown and in wonder, use our fist to threaten, and raise
the hand with the fist to convey solidarity; we bite the lips to acknowledge
our errors and in vexatious circumstances, fold the palms to greet the
others and pray to gods, fall flat on our stomach with hands stretched
over the head, and legs also stretched out to surrender ourselves to
the one before whom we fall flat; we bend our knees and worship. In
this manner we speak also through gestures--while the oral language
has a sway over our communication efforts, there are niches that are
specifically meant for nonverbal communication, and gesture is an integral
part of this process.
GESTURES TO MEET MANY PURPOSES
We use gestures for many purposes--to promise, call, dismiss, threaten,
supplicate, express abhorrence and terror, question and deny; express
joy and sorrow, doubt, confession, repentance, measure, quantity, number
and time; gestures are used by us to encourage, console, restrain, convict,
admire, respect, and condemn. The list is, indeed, an open-ended one.
There are communities in which gesturing as an accompaniment of speech
is demanded; in most Indian communities, gestureless speech is "lifeless"
speech, dispirited; it indicates noninvolvement and reluctance; it may
also mean insulting and showing disrespect to the addressed.
Also in all human societies where noise is to be avoided, oral language gives place to whisper and/or gesture. Thus, the relationship between oral language and gesture is one of complementary distribution of emphasising the content of what is stated in oral language, of supplying what is left out in oral speech, and of indicating and conducting the oral speech itself.
AUDIENCE - A NECESSITY, AND OTHER CONDITIONS
While the ordinary language can be used in its written medium even
when the addressee is absent, performance of gesture requires an audience.
Even when the addressee's attention is distracted, oral language does
and could reach the addressee, whereas, for gesture language to be effective,
the attention of the addressee is essential.
Gestural communication cannot be resorted to in the dark, whereas, oral communication
is possible in the dark. Gestural communication can be employed when
voice cannot be or is not desired to be employed. When secrecy is desired
gesture communication is resorted to. When silence is desired or required,
gesture communication is exploited. Where the ear cannot but the eyes
can reach, gestural communication is found effective.
Human language, through its writing medium, can convey messages to distant
places and future times. While the gestures themselves and the mechanics
of gesturing can be and are transmitted from one generation to another,
transmission of contents via gestural communication from one generation
to another is generally restricted to aesthetic acts only and not for
other types of knowledge.
Oral speech and gestural communication differ in terms of the parts
engaged in their production. Whereas, the oral speech is produced manually,
this manual production of speech is different from the manual production
of gestural signs. In the case of gestural signs, the medium is manual
in the sense that manipulation of hands, fingers, palms, elbows, and
other body parts is made.
The choice would differ from region to region, and from society to
society. In the case of oral speech, uniformly the speech is produced
by vocal organs and is mostly egressive (produced with the help of breath
of air sucked in through the mouth to the lungs). There have been attempts,
however, to compare and relate the speech production mechanisms with
the mechanics of gestural communication.
For example, Ljung (1965) makes the following comparison:
In sign language articulation, the analogue of the movable articulator
in speech (the tongue) is the hand or hands. These may adopt several
basic shapes: open, clenched, one or more fingers extended with the
others closed, one or more fingers curved, etc. No other part of the
body is used as an articulator: even the rare full arm motions are accompanied
by a distinctive hand gesture, and signs for actions characteristic
of the feet, such as walking and dancing are made with the hand. The
hands may be used in a stationary position or moved up, down, forward,
back, to the left, to the right, in concert, parallel to each other,
or crossing over each other.
MOTION IN GESTURE, AND USE OF BODY PARTS
Ljung says further,
Motion may be distinctively rapid and tense, slow and lax, or neither;
proceeding, again distinctively, in straight lines, through curves,
in circles, trembling or wagging from the wrist. The analogue of the
place of articulation in verbal speech (for example, the palate, the
upper teeth) is the point at which a gesture is made or to which the
hand moves during the gesture. In most cases, the place of articulation
is a place on the signer's own body; head, hair, forehead, ear, eye,
nose, upper lip, mouth, chin, chest (heart), lower arm, leg, etc.
Utilization of the back of the body as a place of articulation is
rare, both because of its general inaccessibility to the articulator
and because of its invisibility to the interlocutor. When this part
of the body is used, as in the sign for tail, the signer must turn so
as to present his profile while signing.
The place of articulation is often not actually touched; instead
the hand is only brought into close proximity to the relevant body part.
When the place of articulation is not a part of the body, it is somewhere
in the space nearby, as in indicating a height in front of the body
in the sign for child. Signs are generally formed in a continuous flow,
but sentences and longer segments of discourse may be set off by brief
pauses, when the hands and arms are dropped to the speaker's sides or
lap or are used for some other nonsignalling purpose.
A CLOSE PARALLEL BETWEEN THE SIGN PRODUCTION AND SPEECH PRODUCTION
Those who are familiar with the description of the processes of speech
production in humans will find in the above passage a close parallel
between the processes of sign production and speech production. This
parallel between the production of signs and production of speech has
been sought not only in the phonetic level as given above, but also
in the other levels of human language, such as phonemics, morphemics
and syntax.
Even when parallels in the processes are not attempted to be established, it is assumed that the only way to describe gestural communication is to use the concepts that are employed in the description of human language.
This point will be taken up further below. However, it is pertinent
here to point out, especially since we have above presented a point
of view which claims a parallel between the processes in the production
of speech and gestures, that the sign language communication does not
really have many of the characteristics of phonetic script (discreteness)
as we find in human vocal language.
IDEOGRAPHIC WRITING AND GESTURE
It is more or less similar to an extreme form of ideographic writing.
But even in the latter there is more discreteness than in the gestural
communication. The gestural communication has a large pantomimic element
and has the directly representational characteristic which is rather
absent in vocal language. All the same, gestural communication is not
also a language of pictography, which we find in Early Man's caves,
in which pictures were reproduced for communication purposes.
ARBITRARINESS AND OTHER FEATURES OF GESTURE
There is also an element of arbitrariness in gestural communication
which is qualitatively lacking in Early Man's pictographic writing of
various sorts. In the gesture language, there is a transfer from actual
objects to symbolic objects, such as an erect index finger standing
for man (Mallery, 1880).
Conventionality of this nature is not always found in picture
writing. Moreover, picture writing could be both communicative on the
one hand and decorative, ritual, and ceremonial on the other hand, whereas,
gestural act as normal human communication is communicative and is used
as such with the intent to communicate.
In oral speech there is hierarchical and systemic organization of the
elements that are used in speech. Such a hierarchical and systemic
organization is not found in sign language, even though several
studies have attempted to demonstrate such a hierarchical and systemic
organization (for example, West, 1963).
Gesturing is more like a telegraphic system of writing (but
without any conventionalized 'sentence' consciousness). The gestures
are, more or less, independent 'words' used either as words in a 'construction'
consisting of several gestures interlinked with one another in some
sense, just as morphemes in a sentence in vocal speech are interlinked
with one another, or independent 'sentences' by themselves.
The gesture communication system operates only on one level,
the level of morphemes or words or content words, rather than on a system
which incorporates within itself several systems. For example, the sounds
in a language can be viewed as constituting phonemes at another level.
The phonemes go into the making of morphemes (minimum meaningful units;
the word dogs has two morphemes, dog and the morpheme -s meaning plurality
of the object). Morphemes go into the constitution of words, and the
words into sentences, and sentences into a text. While each level/state/
unit is related to the other, each of these could still maintain itself
as some sort of a self-contained system.
These combinatory characteristics/systems, one built upon another, are not found in gestural language, although there are several significant findings to the effect that gesture communication, like human language, is also a system of systems (West, 1963). Note also that the elaboration and categorization of linguistic units based on their co-occurrence conditions are not found in gestural communication.
COMBINATIONS OF GESTURES
That is, theoretically speaking, one gesture is combinable with
another gesture more freely than one word with another. Thus, the
gestures cannot be generally divided into categories based on their
co-occurrence behavior, such as verb, adjectives, adverb, noun, etc.,
in any strict manner. Also a gesture which is viewed as a subject in
the grammatical sense in the human vocal speech could be both subject
and predicate within the same "gestural sentence".
To split a series of gesture, or to do a parsing of series of gestures produced
is, indeed, a difficult process, since what is a 'subject' in a gesture
sentence could be the object simultaneously of the immediately preceding
gestures.
Like words in the oral language, one could attempt to decipher the
meaning of a gesture based on gestural and nongestural contexts. And
yet gestures are more transparent than words in the sense that in many
cases gestures directly represent objects/events that have, in some
sense, less arbitrariness about them.
We have, in the earlier section, elaborated on the close linkage between
objects and events in the external world, and the gestures. The gestures
become a symbolic transfer of the objects and events in the external
world, but, even when some of the gestures are purely arbitrary in some
gestural symbols, there is some physical similarity in the shape and
motion of the gestures produced, thus revealing the lack of the characteristic
of arbitrariness in a vast majority of the gestures produced and used.
PANTOMIMIC NATURE OF GESTURES
We have also referred to the pantomimic nature of the majority of gestures
used in communication. This fact also reveals the limited nature of
arbitrariness found between the gestures and the objects and events
in the external world. There is a clear separation in vocal speech,
in most cases, between sound and sense, and this separation is not found
to the same extent between gesture and the object or event it represents.
ICONICITY
Gestural communication makes greater use of iconicity and this enables
individuals who do not know each other's language to communicate with
one another using gestures. There are several words and constructions
in the oral language also which are figurative, outlining the objects,
imitating the events and pantomiming the whole episode of communication.
There are also words that focus on only one aspect of an object, but lead to
the comprehension of whole object or event. Onomatopoeic words in vocal
speech clearly indicate linkages between the external world and the
linguistic words. In this sense, onomatopoeia in natural languages comes
somewhat closer to gestural communication. And yet these onomatopoeic
words are also built upon the elements of both arbitrariness and conventionalization.
CULTURAL VARIATION IN GESTURE
These also exhibit cultural variation. The link between the external
world objects and events, the onomatopoeic words in a human language
exhibit more arbitrariness than we find between the iconic gestures
in gestural communication and objects and events in the external world.
GESTURE LEXICON
The scope and size of the gesture lexicon is very much limited. The
referents of gesture communication are much less than the referents
of spoken language in all human societies. It is unlikely that all concepts
found in speech could be expressed in manual gestures with ease, precision,
and effectiveness. It is but natural that when conversion of information
from one medium to another medium is attempted, there is both loss and
gain of information, effectiveness, ease, and precision.
Hence, there cannot be complete correspondence retaining all these features when conversion takes place or is resorted to. So, when speech is sought to be converted into gestures, naturally there are changes made in the nature and quantum of information.
The gestures that accompany speech and the gestures that stand for words in a stretch of oral utterance are generally more limited in their quantum and breadth of semantic coverage than the gestures that are employed independent of oral communication.
Even in this latter category whether the gestures are used in addition
to oral language as in the case of the aboriginal sign languages used
by Red Indians or by the Australian aborigines, or the gestural communication
is resorted to as the means of communication as found among the deaf-mutes,
only a few thousand signs have been found to be in use.
Washburn, as quoted in Taylor (1978), finds 750 signs to be basic signs and others derived. Fant (1964), as quoted in Taylor (1978), considers that out of the several thousand signs that are used by the Red Indians, etc., only 500 signs are basic.
BASIC VOCABULAY IN COMMON LANGUAGE
In normal oral language communication also, estimates fix the basic
vocabulary anywhere from 850 words to 1500 words. Thus, the basic words
and basic signs in both oral language and gestural communication appear
to be not very much different in their quantum (West, 1963).
However, the quality of human language lexicon, as a system, is much
more open-ended and incorporates the essence of entire language, not
only in terms of vocabulary items, but also in terms of the rules of
grammar. Human language lexicon is the microcosm of all that is found
in human language -- the rules of formation, derivation, inflection,
and use. This microcosmic element is still elusive in gestural communication.
While in the spoken language, we could converse more or less with equal ease
upon all topics (the medium itself does not constrain the expressions
of any topic, but rules of social competence and performance do constrain
the facility), in the case of gestural communication, the medium in
several cases does not lend itself easily for the expression of certain
contents.
For example, 'spatial relationships, physical activities, enumeration, specification and comparison are easily expressed. Animal names and descriptions of their characteristics and movements are abundantly represented. Frequent also are personal and place names. Plants and shrubs are little represented as named species, and other terms for non-living nature are also relatively few in number. Difficult to express are cause-and-effect statements, and emotive and evaluative terms are scanty. True synonymy seems to be rare' (Taylor, 1978).
MULTIPLICITY OF AND CHANGE OF MEANINGS IN GESTURE
Note that words as well as gestures can and do change their meanings
(in terms of their implications, if not their literal meanings) from
context to context. However, there is no one to one correspondence between
a gesture and a word.
A single word may express an idea which is complex and which can be communicated only by a battery of gestures. Likewise a single gesture may signify an idea which can be communicated only by a battery of words. Also note that in a human language the use of words is often marked by a syncretic understanding of what they stand for.
Although a word is uttered more or less alike and may have an overall meaning
shared by all those who use that word, the focus or the feature of a
particular object or event meant in a particular context by individuals
may differ. Furthermore, one may even use a word without fully understanding
the meaning of that particular word.
On the other hand, one cannot use a gesture in communication without
understanding what the gesture stands for, when one wants to communicate
through the use of that gesture. Even the most familiar and appropriate
signs to the objects or events being gestured cannot be understood by
the others outside the context.
Successful signs must have a much closer analogy and establish a
concord between the talkers far beyond that produced by the mere sound
of words. Merely emotional sounds or interjections may be advantageously
employed in connection with merely emotional gestures, but, whether
with or without them, they would be useless for the explicit communication
of facts and opinions of which signs by themselves are capable (Mallery,
1882).
PREFERENCE FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF GESTURES
Gesture lexicon is spontaneous and the use of gestures in the communities
in India is not conventionalized in interpersonal communication, in
the sense that one could easily identify more numerous idiosyncratically
performed gestures than conventionally agreed upon gestures, and that
avoidance of gestures is generally desired. Gestures are elevated to
aesthetic arts wherein there is both conventionalization and arbitrariness.
Both these features (conventional and idiosyncratic) are kept to the
minimum in the gestures made in interpersonal communication contexts.
In other words, the interpersonal communication in most Indian communities
does not institutionalize gestural communication and leaves them to
the idiosyncratic and less consciously executed modes of expression.
As such, the gesture lexicon is not as elaborate as what we find among
the Jews or among some European communities. This does not, however,
mean that we do not use gestures at all or that there is no conventionalized
and institutionalized gesture lexicon in most Indian communities. It
only means that the quantum is of a limited number and its use is also
relatively more limited and fixed.
GESTURAL COMMUNICATION AS SUBSTITUTE FOR SPEECH
Gestural communication is generally conceived to be a substitute for
speech. We have already referred to the facts that gestural communication
is often resorted to in contexts wherein oral communication is to be
avoided for various reasons; gestural communication often accompanies
performing a supplementary role to oral communication. In the case of
Red Indians (Native Americans), sign language takes on the role of a
language for inter-tribal communication and for communication with those
who do not know their language. It also takes on the role of a ritual
among the speakers of the same oral language.
In all these cases and in the aesthetic arts also, the power to interpret,
and sharpen further the gestural communication lies with the oral language.
Even in the case of the deaf-mutes, once institutionalization of their
gestures takes place, their gestural communication is placed upon the
foundations of oral speech of others.
CONCEPTS REPRESENTED BY GESTURE
The concepts represented by gesture are already there in the human
language in almost all the cases, and these concepts (even if their
origins are rooted in an overall ability for communication and not simply
on a propensity for language use) come to be based on concepts developed
and used in vocal language as soon as there begins a contact between
gesture communication and language use.
Often, in the case of people who habitually use oral language for communication,
gestural language becomes a conversion from the spoken medium to a silent
medium of gestural motions, with several underlying processes and motivations.
PURE GESTURAL LANGUAGE AND POST-LANGUAGE GESTURAL COMMUNICATION
There is pure gestural language, a manifestation of prelinguistic thought
in early childhood; it is nurtured into an art in several directions,
sometimes for interpersonal and intergroup communication as found among
Red Indians (Native Americans) and Australian Aborigines. It also matures
into an effective medium for the performing arts.
There is also non-language gestural communication as found among deaf-mutes
on the one hand, and other congenitally disordered population which
could be made with some difficulty, to be in consonance with vocal speech;
it could also be regulated by vocal speech.
There is also post-language gestural communication in which gestures
may accompany oral language in a supportive role.
There is yet another post-language gestural communication in which language is totally, or in some severe fashion, lost and the affected is led to the use of gestural communication.
Unlike in oral language, there is less generalization and abstraction
in gestures. While the oral language is characterized by concatenation,
gestural communication is characterized by a use of more than one means.
Concatenation is used, but rather in a loose fashion; apart from concatenation
of gestures, vocal signs may also be interspersed. Also apart from hands,
other body parts also may be used. Feelings and emotional expressions
on the face also may be used.
MULTIDIMENSIONAL EXHIBITION OF SIGNS
Thus, there is a multidimensional exhibition of signs in gestural communication,
whereas, in oral communication, communication via the vocal organs occupies
the centre stage. Also note that the concatenation of the sign language
is of a varying type. As already pointed out, the order in which gestures
occur in a communication (wherein only gestures are used, for instance,
in the Red Indian sign language or in the gestural communication of
the deaf-mutes) is not uniformly followed by the same individual using
gestural communication.
Furthermore, each gesture can act as an independent sentence in the sense that it communicates a complete sense, having subject and predicate implied by the same sense. In a series of gestures, a gesture may be the subject of a following gesture and it could also be the predicate of a preceding gesture. There is also a different view that finds some order in the occurrence of elements in gestural communication.
ORDER OF OCCURRENCE OF ELEMENTS
For example, Taylor (1978) suggests for the Red Indian (Native American)
sign language the following order of occurrence of elements in an utterance:
'topics precede qualifiers and complements (nouns precede modifiers
and verbs); logical objects precede or follow their governing sign,
the exact position in each case possibly being idiomatic; obligatorily
the sign for question begins an interrogative sentence, and the sign
for negative follows directly the sign it modifies'.
Taylor also finds some order in the formation of a word sign in the
Red Indian sign language: 'Words in sign language consist of from one
to several sign morphemes. When two or more sign morphemes function
together as words it is highly characteristic that the first morpheme
announces a topic, which is then followed by comments about the topic
that become progressively more specific and that eventually define it.
Negro: Whiteman + black; infantry: Whiteman + soldier + walk; sister-in-law:
brother + possess + wife; bachelor: man + marry + no; cheat: lie + steal'.
Taylor further points out that the order of constituents in a 'word',
that is, in a gesture word, is generally fixed.
The order of words in the sentence, on the other hand, is fairly, though not totally, free'. There are variations in the order, 'but when the variations were resubmitted to the informant at a later time, he often rejected some as substandard or meaningless, thus indicating that there are preferred word orders'.
ORAL VS GETURAL COMMUNICATION
We have given, in the above lines, some salient features of vocal and
gestural communication and their inter-relationships. We have presented
a general overview of the features without distinguishing between systems
of sign communication that operate almost independently of oral language
and those systems of gestural communication that depend on oral backdrop
and accompany oral speech.
There appears to be some differences between the two when we investigate the matter in terms of their internal organization, the choice and combinatorial possibilities of occurrence of gestures. For example, although the aboriginal sign languages exhibit both natural and conventional sign relations, iconic and indexical elements are found to be exploited more than the symbolic relations by them, in comparison to the oral language which exploits symbolic relations more than the iconic and indexical relations.
FLEXIBILITY OF SIGN LANGUAGE
Since one of the important reasons for the emergence and retention
of sign languages as an independent system along with oral language
is their usefulness in communicating among those who do not know each
other's language, sign languages are more flexible in accommodating
new signs for the repertoire of the interactants.
It has been reported that the Red Indians (Native Americans) were in
the habit of imitating the gestures of white men even if the latter
were performing the signs wrongly and/or interpreting their (Red Indians'
gestures) incorrectly. Communication rather than correctness of gestures
appears to be an important motivating factor in the conduct of sign
languages. On the other hand, in the performing arts, correctness, elegance,
and spectacle dominate the use of gestures.
INTER-RELATIONSHIPS
We may conclude this section by giving two important features of the
inter-relationship between spoken language and sign language presented
by Umiker-Sebeok and Sebeok (1978). One is on the intersemiotic translation
from the spoken language to sign language and vice versa: 'There is
transmutation or intersemiotic translation, which is the interpretation
of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems'.
Umiker-Sebeok and Sebeok (1978) also suggest that this inter-semiotic
translation is to a certain extent a barrier to the attainment of fluency
in the use of sign language. Note that this, indeed, is a factor in
attaining fluency in the second/foreign language. To the extent that
one is occupied with the transmutation of the utterances of one language
into another, the fluency in the target language is always affected
and is often defective as well.
The greater the degree of conventionalization and standardization
and the less the individual signer has to rely upon translation from
spoken language, the greater the fluency of sign language performances.
Another point that Umiker-Sebeok and Sebeok (1978) suggest is that
we look at the use of sign language along with spoken language as similar
to the use of illustrations in written texts. In written texts, illustrations
have very many functions to perform.
In a broad, general sense, an illustrator is always dependent on the
author; all aspects of the illustrations should also be textually accurate.
But in most cases, we find this not so. There is always a dialectic,
antithetical relationship between the author's work and the illustrator's
work, so long as the illustrator also assumes some creative role.
Even if he does not assume any creative role, and wants to be thoroughly faithful,
the level of his understanding of the author's work and the actual processes
of semiotic transmutation, transfer from one code to another, automatically
brings in variation (Thirumalai, 1984).
STUDY OF GESTURES
Gesture as a form of communication has been studied for a long time.
Explanation of the process of gesture is of great antiquity. Gestures
were considered to be an effective accompaniment of rhetoric by the
Greeks and Romans. They form an integral part of study and performances
of the performing arts all over the world. In Indian Theatre, for over
2000 years, insightful analysis of the use of gesture has been made.
There are theories that gesture preceded human language. There are also
attempts to codify gestures, prepare inventories, and develop independent
communication modes using gestures alone.
If in the Western sciences there has been some sort of continuity of
interest in the study of gestures from the Greco-Roman times to Darwin
and present day sciences and its elevation to art, in Indian culture
we find that gesture has been elevated in ancient times to aesthetic
levels, on the one hand, and has been exploited for social identity,
ranking and status purposes, on the other hand.
Thus, gesture in Indian contexts finds a place in purposive communications
in a marked fashion, in the aesthetic arts, in religion, in sculpture,
and in interpersonal and social group communication. Use of gesture
is marked by a continuity ensured by their use in arts.
In the next section we present a few modern approaches to the study
of gestural communication. The contributions covered are those of Col.
Mallery, Wundt, Efron, Poyotos, and Ekman and Friesen.
CONTENTS PAGE
4.1. Mallery and Sign Language
MALLERY - A PIONEER IN THE STUDY OF GESTURAL COMMUNICATION
The studies by Col. Garrick Mallery stand out as the most important
contributions to an understanding of gestural communication in general
and Red Indian (Native American) sign language (Plains Sign Language
of the American Indians) in particular. Mallery's major contributions
are reprinted and available in Umiker-Sebeok and Sebeok (1978). Writing
on Red Indian sign language over 100 years ago, Mallery brought in several
insights into the study of gestural communication.
Mallery's study, according to him, is intended to be an exposition
of the gesture speech of mankind, and is thorough enough to be of suggestive
use to students of philology and of anthropology in general (Mallery,
1880). He also compared the sign language used by North American Indians
with that used by other peoples and deaf-mutes (Mallery, 1882). In the
past, during Mallery's time, the major emphasis was on the collection
and description of signs used by various American Indian communities.
MALLERY'S PAMPHLET
Mallery found that 'many of the descriptions (of signs) given in the
lists of earlier date ... are, too curt and incomplete to assure the
perfect reproduction of the sign intended, while in others the very
idea or object of the sign is loosely expressed, so that for thorough
and satisfactory exposition they require to be both corrected and supplemented,
and therefore, the cooperation of competent observers, to whom this
pamphlet (Mallery's 1880 work) is addressed, and to whom it will be
mailed, is urgently requested'.
The publication is 'a collection in the form of a vocabulary, of all
authentic signs, including signals made at a distance, with their description,
as also that of any specially associated facial expression, set forth
in language intended to be so clear, illustrations being added when
necessary, that they can be reproduced by the reader. The description
contributed, as also the explanation or conception occurring to or ascertained
by the contributors, will be given in their own words, with their own
illustrations when furnished or when they can be designed from written
descriptions, and always with individual credit as well as responsibility.
'The signs arranged in the vocabulary will be compared in their order with those
of deaf-mutes, with those of foreign tribes of men, whether ancient
or modern, and with the suggested radicals of languages, for assistance
in which comparisons travellers and scholars are solicited to contribute
in the same manner and with the same credit above mentioned. Intelligent
criticisms will be gratefully received, considered, and given honorable
place'.
The above quote clearly indicates the scope and methodoiogy Mallery
adopted in his work. Mallery's methodological soundness was not matched
by any other contemporary scholar of his; most of his contemporaries
engaged themselves in the collection and description of signs. Mallery
went beyond everyone else and offered several theoretical insights as
well as structural descriptions of the general processes of gestural
communication, most of which have been adopted as the basis of later
research in the discipline of gestural communication.
Mallery's classification of signs, and the identification of elements and movements that constitute signs in North American Indian sign language have been generally repeated in almost all works with some changes in order and terms, until the influence of modern structural linguistics was brought to bear upon the study of sign language by scholars beginning with A. L. Kroeber.
Even with the influence of modern structural linguistics on the study of gestural communication, the basic concepts of Mallery and his approach towards the study of sign language continue to exhibit a modernity even today. For, in essence, Mallery had a comprehensive view of what communication is.
ORAL LANGUAGE AND GESTURAL COMMUNICATION
Mallery recognizes the superior generalizing and abstracting powers
of oral language, while emphasizing, at the same time, that gestures
could excel in graphic and dramatic effect applied to narrative and
to rhetorical exhibition.
Mallery presents an insightful analysis of the inter-relationship between oral and sign languages, and points out the mutually exclusive and mutually complementary areas of their use. Their relative merits as modes of communication occupy a great deal of his work. Spoken language can be interpreted only by another spoken language, whereas gestural language does not require such interpretation.
Gesture speech cannot be resorted to in the dark, nor can it be resorted to
when the attention of the person addressed has not been otherwise attracted.
However, when the voice would not be or shall not be used, gesture speech
can be used. When highly cultivated, the rapidity of gesture speech
on familiar subjects exceeds that of speech and 'approaches to that
of thought itself.' Oral speech is wholly conventional, whereas gesture
speech is both natural and conventional.
Mallery, however, finds that there is
no need to determine upon the priority between communication
of ideas by bodily motion and by vocal articulation. It is enough to
admit that the connection between them was so early and intimate that
the gestures, in the wide sense indicated of presenting ideas under
physical forms, had a direct formative effect upon many words; that
they exhibit the earliest condition of the human mind; are traced from
the farthest antiquity among all people possessing records; are universally
prevalent in the savage stage of social evolution; survive agreeably
in the scenic pantomime, and still adhere to the ordinary speech of
civilized man by motions of the face, hands, head and body, often involuntary,
often purposely in illustration or emphasis.
Signs are originally air pictures of the outline or chief features of the objects.
In course of time, this similarity may be lost and the signs become
abbreviated (become arbitrary) and conventionalized. With the growth
of conventionalization and arbitrariness and with groups choosing different
and varied features of the same object or event to produce signs for
the same object or event, variations between signs and sign languages
increase and difficulty in communication using the sign language as
a medium increases.
However, the elements of the sign language are natural and universal
in the sense that there is a general system, instead of a uniform code.
This general system admits generic unit while denying the specific identity
of signs employed--'the common use of sign and of signs based on the
same principles, but not of the same signs to express the same ideas,
even substantially' marks the universal characteristic of sign language.
INNATE AND IMITATIVE SIGNS
Mallery also divides the signs into innate (generally emotional) and
invented; into developed and abridged; into radical and derivative,
and into indicative (as directly as possible of the object intended),
imitative (representing the object by configurative drawing), operative
actions, and facial expressions. Mallery also brings in notions from
grammar and prosody, such as tropes of metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy,
and catachresis. Another classification is formal, into single and compound,
which Mallery considers to be the most useful distinction.
Mallery also distinguished between signs and signals, signs and symbols,
and signs and emblems. Signal is some action or manifestation intended
to be seen at a distance. This does not allow for minute details and,
as such, symbols may have a form and structural complexity different
from signs). Signals are executed exclusively by bodily action and also
using some object as an implement.
DEVICES FOR SIGNS
They may also be executed by various devices, such as by using smoke
or fire. The symbols are mostly conventional. Mallery suggests that
symbols are less obvious and artificial than signs. Symbols need convention,
and are not only abstract, but also metaphysical. They also need explanation
from history, religion, and customs.
On the contrary, signs, as viewed by Mallery, do not possess these
characteristics. Emblems do not require any analogy between them and
the objects; these may be simply accidental.
Mallery finds that the sign language/gesture utterance presents no other part of grammar besides syntax. Syntax of sign language is the grouping and sequence of its ideographic pictures.
GRAMMAR AND MEANING IN SIGN LANGUAGE
While, in the oral language meaning does not adhere to the phonetic
representation of thought, in the sign language it adheres to signs.
In the gesture language there is no organized sentence similar to ones
we find in oral language. There are no articles, grammatical particles,
passive voice, case, grammatical gender, not even the distinction between
substantives (nouns) and verbs.
Nor is there a distinction between subject and predicate, qualifiers and inflections. The sign radicals have the characteristic of being everything, 'without being specifically any of our parts of speech'. Mallery also suggests that this state of conditions offers an interesting comparison with the syntax of vocal language of early humans.
In the analysis of sign language syntax, we must consider, according to Mallery, both the order in which the signs succeed one another and the relative positions in which they are made, 'the latter remaining longer in the memory than the former'.
ORDER OF OCCURRENCE
The order of occurrence of signs shows the natural order of ideas in
the aboriginal mind and 'the several modes of inversion by which they
pass from the known to the unknown, beginning with the dominant idea
or that supposed to be best known'.
The sign language gives first the principal figure and then adds the accessories successively. The expressions follow the order of ideas, according to Mallery. He also suggests that signs do not represent words, they do not even suggest words, for a simple word may express a complex idea, to be fully rendered only by a group of signs, and vice versa, a single may suffice for a number of words'.
PHYLOGENY
One of Mallery's chief contributions lies in his focus on the relationship
between gesture and oral language in their phylogeny. In his view there
was a time in which man had no oral language, but only gesture language.
Oral language evolved, among other things, from the primordial roots
of gestural communication. Although people' can speak without pause
in their own language without a single gesture, speech has not eliminated
the need for gesture.
'The signs survive for convenience, used together with oral language, and for special employment when language is unavailable'. Another characteristic is that the signs may be understood even when they are produced for the first time.
While these facts reveal the inter-relationship between, as well as
the common phylogeny of, gesture communication and oral speech, it is
also true, Mallery suggests, that there is a progression away from the
use of gesture language in societies materially more advanced. (This
is not what Mallery says exactly, but one could safely arrive at this
implication.) Thus, Mallery proposes that 'the further a language has
been developed from its primordial roots, which have been twisted into
forms no longer suggesting any reason for their original selection,
and the more the primitive significance of its words has disappeared,
the fewer points of contact can it retain with signs. The subsequent
grammatical studies of American Indian languages have shown that these
languages do have a very complex grammar and, as such, Mallery's suggestion
that in the American Indian languages 'the connection between the idea
and the word is only less obvious than that still unbroken between the
idea and the sign', and that these languages are 'strongly affected
by the concepts of outline, form, place, position, and feature on which
gesture is founded, while they are similar in their fertile combination
of radical', is not supported by linguistic research.
All the same, the position of Mallery as regards the ancestry of gesture
communication as the progenitor of oral language and his position that
there may be a correspondence between advancement of material culture
and reduction in use of gestures are still wide open for further investigation.
CONTENTS PAGE
4. 2. Wundt and Gestural Communication
For Wundt, sign language is simply a primitive form of ordinary language and as such it may reveal something of the essential nature of natural language. Also gestural systems might uniquely reflect characteristics of the innate human language capacity.
Wundt also suggests that gestural communication is a kind of universal language
in spite of varied gestures and conditions. Because of this universal
nature, people are able to understand one another when they make use
of gestures without great difficulty.
There is a tendency among people to combine word sense with affective expressions even when speaking the same language and also to resort to gestures when they interact with other people who do not know their language. The growth of the spoken word had its impact in the development and preservation of gestures.
Gestures are formed based on emotion, affective tendency, and temperament.
Although different conditions of culture may have some influence on
the formation and use of specific signs, these do not alter the character
of certain concepts such as I, you, he, here and there, large and small,
sky, earth, clouds, rain, walking, standing, sitting, hitting, death,
sleep, etc. The universal nature of gestural communication must be sought
in these characteristics.
Wundt identifies two basic forms of gesture, namely, demonstrative and imitative. The demonstrative gesture was the original way of expressing emotion. The imitative gestures are descriptive gestures. They are divided into two subclasses, mimed and connotative. The mimed gestures are pure imitation. Connotative gestures posit a connection between themselves and the objects.
This connection is to be imagined and cultivated. There is also another class of gestures, symbolic gestures. Demonstrative gestures are natural gestures and are unpremeditated. The imitative gestures or the descriptive gestures are greater in size and more variegated than the demonstrative gestures.
Mimed gesture is the primary form of the imitative gesture. In miming one may either draw the outline of the object in the air by the index finger or imitate the image of the object three dimensionally with the hands. Both can also occur together. In the production of connotative gestures, one singles out arbitrarily a secondary characteristic of the object and uses it to represent the object.
The symbolic gesture is a sign of some sort that calls to mind a mental concept 'whether the connection between them is concerned with an ordinary external, object or with a more subtle relationship'. The gesture itself is not the idea as in the demonstrative gesture, or in the imitative mimed gesture. The symbolic gesture is not also connected with the idea by any natural similarity between it and the idea it represents.
There are obscure links between the symbolic gesture and the idea it
represents. The symbolic gesture implies a completely distinct idea,
whereas, the connotative gesture maintains some link with the idea through
the former's reference to at least the secondary characteristics of
the object it represents.
The demonstrative, mimed and connotative gestures all refer directly
to their meaning. In the composition of the symbolic gesture, there
is always one intermediate idea between the gesture and the ultimate
idea implied. For example, a hand cupped like a laddle is directly associated
with its meaning, 'drinking gourd'.
Originally the gesture suggests the laddle or gourd which later comes
to refer to water, the content held by the laddle or water. Thus, the
concept of laddle or gourd expresses an idea, water, different from
itself. Note that this technique is resorted to also in oral language.
For example, the word pozhutu in Tamil refers to time
and portion of time which comes to mean Sun. Indian traditional grammars
have identified this phenomenon in the spoken word and deals with them
under aakupeyar in Tamil and paryayapadam/ laksanartha
in Sanskrit.
In any case note also that the symbolic gestures can be replaced by or paraphrased into direct indicative gestures (either mimed or connotative) in gestural communication. Thus, the symbolic gesture of a hand cupped like a laddle or gourd meaning water can be easily replaced by a gesture pointing directly at nearby water, or through other imitational gestures.
Wundt finds that the natural gestural communication focuses mostly on the concretely
perceptible. It covers three basic logical categories: objects, qualities,
and condition. Since the same gesture may be used for several meanings,
the gestural process provides for various nuances and movements for
the same gesture to refer to different meanings.
For example, the deaf-mute touching a tooth can have four interpretations: the first meaning is tooth; then the two qualities of whiteness and hardness might have been implied; fourthly it may connote stone.
Distinctions are made this way:
Touching the tooth alone indicates 'tooth'; touching the whole row of teeth indicates 'whiteness'; the eyes beam at the same time. A tap on the incisors expresses 'hardness'; and adding a throwing motion after tapping the teeth indicates 'stone'. In spite of these qualifying devices, Wundt finds two instances which generally are marked by unsolvable ambiguity. One and the same gesture may have a different logical sense, depending on whether it is preceded by a principal gesture or a qualifying one.
(Distinction between principal and qualifying gestures is also difficult
to make.) In another instance of ambiguity, gestures may be used in
limitless different ways to represent an object so long as the action
represented by these gestures has something to do with the objects.
Wundt finds that in general signs are more ambiguous than words are.
One important contribution Wundt made was his insistence that gestural
communication does not merely consist of individual signs, but of sentences.
Only by viewing signs as sentences will we be able to make complete
sense out of gestural communication.
There are no connectors in gesture sentences as we find in oral language sentences. We have to infer these features from the complete context of the expression. Also because the sign functions more or less as independent sentences, identifying them as subject, object or predicate, or as passive or active, or as substantive, verb, etc., also becomes a problem. The syntax of gestures may be reduced to the principles of logic, temporal and spatial functionality.
The temporal and the spatial characteristics are the vivid part of gestural communication. They are preponderantly in operation in gestural communication. The concrete reality and direct comprehensibility of the individual signs derive their strength from their operation. There is also successivity as in oral language.
Logical operations depend upon and derive their strength from the feature that each sign could be considered a separate sentence. Gestural communication, according to Wundt, reports events exactly in the order in which they occur. It describes objects in the order in which they are perceived. Because of this reason, inversions of events, as found in oral language through various transformations, are not found in gestural communication. Cleft sentences and various other stylistic deviations from the norm are not attested in sign language. Wundt also suggests two conditions--one, we have already cited.
That is, the individual gestures follow one another in the order in which they are perceived; and the second is that because of the slow succession of individual signs, a gesture may take its meaning through preceding and not succeeding signs.
Note that this need not necessarily be so in oral language expressions,
where a crisscross pattern is easily found often. Because of these two
reasons, Wundt finds that the gesturers are compelled to express first
of all those images that have a greater affective meaning than others.
Wundt was viewing gestural communication in the overall framework of communication that is specifically human. Gestural communication is not a communication shared by both animals and humans. It is a specifically human act, a human product, a natural product of the development of expressive emotions.
CONTENTS PAGE
4. 3. Gesture and Animal Communication Systems
The forms of gestures, their developmental growth, extension of meaning, semantic change and syntactic order all distinguish it from the animal communication systems.
David Efron in his 1941 work (reissued in 1972) made a 'tentative study
of some of the spatio-temporal and "linguistic" aspects of the gestural
behavior of Eastern Jews and Southern Italians in New York City living
under similar as well as different environmental conditions.' This study,
done under Franz Boas, was 'part of a somewhat extended investigation
of the influence of race and environment upon bodily development and
upon behavior'. That was the time in which, some scholars, under the
influence and milieu of developments in Germany, were inclined to make
studies aimed at establishing the supremacy of one race over another.
Efron's study aimed at identifying whether there was any truth in such assumptions
and convincingly proved the hollowness of these scholars by providing
evidence from an area, performance in which was often sought and provided
as proof for the supremacy of the pure Aryan. Boas found that every
so-called race contained a great many individuals of distinct genetic
characteristics and analogous genetic characteristics occurred in various
'races'.
Boas identified two approaches to tackle this complex problem--on the
one hand, the behavior of genetically identical individuals living under
different conditions could be studied and, on the other hand, one could
'study the development and behavior of large groups of individuals and
of their descendants in markedly different environments'.
Efron 's study thus marks a significant departure from the by and large observativnal studies of American Indian sign language to a combination of both observation and experiment, in selected, and significant contexts of communication. Efron's study is, indeed, today comparable to any systematic sociolinguistic investigation.
Efron's study is a forerunner to the study of gestural communication in social and psychological terms. Unfortunately, this has not attracted the attention of scholars in any effective manner in the past. Currently with interest in sociolinguistics, and in the inter-relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication, both within the semiotic context and outside it, Efron's study is reissued in the last decade and is found completely in consonance with the research methods and trends in sociolinguistics.
To us it appears that Efron's study is a perfect model for students of linguistics in India, whose training in adjacent sciences, such as psychology, sociology and anthropology is practically and wholly inadequate to undertake interdisciplinary experimental investigations involving complex and difficult statistical tools, and who would, all the same, like to pursue their research on nonverbal communication, and linguistic identities and functions based on nonverbal communication.
Efron makes an experimental investigation of the gestural behaviour of two so-called racial groups, Eastern Jews and Southern Italians in New York City, living under similar as well as different environmental conditions.
The object of his investigation was to discover whether there were any standardized
group differences in the gestural behavior of these two different racial
groups. If there were, indeed, differences, he aimed at finding out
what became of these gestural patterns in members and descendants of
these groups under the impact of social assimilation.
In order to pursue his studies, Efron resorted to two, what he called,
legitimate ways--the experimental and the historical. His material on
the historical side come from documents of the past, such as newspapers,
novels, etc., which gave descriptions of the use of gestures and which
convincingly proved that even in the societies (in Europe) which now
abhor/avoid overt gestures in the interactions of their members, there
were times in which gestures were considered natural, fashionable, and
so on.
The experimental approach revolved around obtaining materials in 'absolutely spontaneous situations in the everyday environments of the people concerned who never knew that they were subject of an investigation'.
He carried out the investigation by means of a four-fold method--direct observation of gestural behaviour in natural situation, sketches drawn from life by a contemporary American painter under the same conditions, rough counting, and motion pictures studied by observations and judgments of naive observers and graphs and charts with measurements and tabulations of data obtained. In other words, Efron had all the elements of present day empirical methods of investigation employed. Moreover, Efron elevated the study of gestural communication from its basic roots in inventory making to an understanding of social communication processes.
Efron's study dealt with the gestures with regard to their spatiotemporal
aspects as well as with regard to their referential aspects. In the
former category, he studied the "movements" and, in the latter category,
he studied the use of gesture as language. Efron focused primarily upon
hand movements and to a lesser extent on head movements, with occasional
consideration of trunk position. He did not consider facial expression,
posture, gait, or eye movements.
Just as Efron was innovative in using data from gestural communication for social sciences research, he was innovative also in providing a classificatory model for the description of gestures. Efron offered a neat classification, which is as follows:
Spatio-temporal:
Gestures are considered simply as movement in this place. These are treated
as independent from interactive or referential aspects. Under the spatio-temporal
aspects, we have radius, form, plane, body parts, and tempo dealt with.
Radius of the gesture is the size of the radius of movement. Maximum radius is the most distant point from the shoulder axis, reached by the wrist in an outgoing movement; minimum radius is the nearest approach of the wrist to the body in the course of the continuing gesture.
Form refers to the type of movement--sinuous, elliptical, angular or straight, whereas plane refers to sideways posture or posture towards auditor (frontal), up or down, vertical, away from speaker and auditor, etc. Under body parts, Efron includes the following as involved in gesticulation -- head gestures (area movement, rate and frequency, and whether used as substitute for hands), digital gestures (variety of positions and shapes of hands), unilaterality versus bilaterality in handmovement, ambulatory gestures (sequential transfer of motion from one arm to the other), and tempo (abrupt, dischronic versus flowing transitions from one movement to another). Note that dynamic parameters are used to capture the spatio-temporal aspects of gestural communication.
In categorizations offered by Mallery and his contemporaries, the emphasis was on finding what constituted a gesture, that is, the emphasis was on the identification of elements that constituted a sign.
Interlocutional Aspects:
These aspects are concerned with the behavioral conduct of the individuals
in the interaction via gesture. Efron focuses on four items under this
head. These are familiarity with the physical person of the interlocutor
(interruption; capture of attention; physical contact), simultaneous
gesturing of all interactants, conversational grouping (use of space
and distance between speakers and auditors) and gesturing with objects
using an inanimate object as an arm extension.
Linguistic Aspects:
These deal with aspects of gesture in relation to language -- whether
the gesture has meaning independent of or only in conjunction with speech.
Efron provides a very significant classification of signs under this.
There are two major divisions-logical, discursive and objective. Under
logical discursive, the aspect of sign that follows the course of the
ideational process, and not the object or the thought itself, is emphasized.
Batons are gestures that give the successive stages of referential activity.
The ideographic gestures trace or sketch out in the air the path and direction of thought. The objective gestures are divided into two major groups--deictic and physiographic. The deictic gestures point out objects whereas the physiographic gestures show what they mean. The physiographic pictures are again of two types--the iconographic gestures depict the form of a visual object whereas the kinetographic gestures depict a bodily action.
The third major category of gestures, apart from those of logical-discursive and objective gestures, are the emblematic or symbolic gestures. The emblematic or symbolic gestures have a standardized meaning within a culture. These are culture-specific. The emblematic or symbolic gestures represent a visual or a logical object by means of pictorial or nonpictorial form which has no morphological relationship to the thing represented.
Efron finds very many interesting features of gestural communication that are
motivated by processes in other behavioral patterns of the community
to which the gesturers belong.
For example, he identifies a number of gestural acts that he terms as hybrid gestures. This is the combination of elements peculiar to the gestures of traditional individuals of Jewish or Italian communities with elements found in the gestures of Americans of Anglo-Saxon descent. From these findings, Efron concludes that 'the same individual may, if simultaneously exposed over a period of time to two or more gesturally different groups, adopt and combine certain gestural traits of both groups'.
Efron compares a hybrid gesturer to a bilingual person who retains the characteristics of their first language in their performance in the second language. He finds that both the assimilated Eastern Jews and Southern Italians in New York City differ from their respective traditional groups and resemble each other.
The gestural characteristics found in the traditional Jews and Italians disappear with the social assimilation of the individual Jew or Italian into the Americanized community and resemble gesturally the specific American group to which these individuals have become assimilated. Also they acquire the gestural characteristics of the social stratum of the Americanized community to which they get assimilated.
Efron concludes that 'gestural behaviour, or the absence of it, is to some extent at least, conditioned by factors of socio-psychological nature ... (the findings) do not bear out the contention this form of behaviour is determined by biological descent'.
Efron's contribution, thus, is significant in several ways. Firstly, it presents a classification of gestures under actual communicative contexts and describes the role and function of gestures in modern society.
While the earlier studies focused on the composition of signs, their
primordial roots amid the universal nature or otherwise of the gestures,
mostly with an anthropological bias, Efron's study takes the focus on
gestural communication to a plane of sociological research. Gesture
is now seen as another important sociological index. It shows how sociological
processes could influence the repertory and use of gestures to meet
various social ends.
Secondly, Efron's study focuses on the inter-relationship between language
expressions and gestures. Thirdly, Efron's study focuses on the dynamic
nature of the gesture institution and shows how culture influences the
use, retention, and modulation of gestural communication.
Fourthly, the methodology adopted is very significant since it combines both observation and experimentation, collects and collates data and arrives at conclusions based on empirical procedures and data. The method also breaks a new ground in social science research involving both linguistic and nonverbal variables.
Finally, gestural communication is studied not for its own sake but as an aid for sociological inquiry. From a mere descriptive, and at times anthropology-oriented study, gestural communication now becomes a proper tool to understand modern societies as well. Thus, Efron's study paved the way for the social psychological studies of gestural communication.
CONTENTS PAGE
4. 4. Some Studies of Gestural Communication
In this section we propose to present two types of studies as sample of recent studies of gestural communication. Both these studies operate around empirical data and methods of experimentation within the overall framework of principles of psychological experiments. In fact, one of the studies, that of Poyotos (1975), discusses problems of gestural inventories, raising issues of theoretical importance. Thus, this study is not directly based on any experiment, but is dealt with here because of its interest in preparing the inventories, from a modern point of view.
Poyotos argues in favor of bridging a gap between the teaching of linguistic
structures and the association of these linguistic structures with the
nonverbal patterns of behavior in order to arrive at a total communicative
competence. Poyotos asks for the inventories of gestures which almost
exclusively accompany verbal behavior, those which replace it, those
which perform both functions, essential physical movement and are easily
recognized by an untrained observer, specialized group gesture systems,
heavily iconic gestures, body configuration and stance varying geographically
as well as among communities, autistic gestures, and erotic gestures.
Poyotos suggests that we should differentiate between gestures, manners
and postures, from the cultural point as well as considering the pedagogical
possibilities.
There are three elements in the description of nonverbal communication, according to Poyotos --gesture, manner and posture. By gesture Poyotos means ' conscious or unconscious body movement made mainly with the head, the face alone, or the limbs, learned or somatogenic, and serving as a primary communicative tool, dependent or independent from, verbal language; either simultaneous or alternating with it, and modified .by the conditioning background (smiles, eye movements, a gesture of beckoning, a tic, etc.)?
Manner is seen similar to gesture, but 'is more or less dynamic body attitude and socially codified according to specific situations, either simultaneous or alternating with verbal language (the way one eats at the table, greets others, coughs, stretches, etc.)'.
Posture is a conscious or unconscious general position of the body, more static than gesture, learned or somatogenic, either simultaneous or alternating with verbal language, modified by social norms and by the rest of the conditioning background, and used less as a communicative tool, although it may reveal affective states and social status (sitting, standing, joining both hands behind one's back while walking, etc.).
Poyotos suggests that gesture study should take into account not simply the gesture itself but also linguistic, paralinguistic, kinesic (other than gestural), proxemic, and chronemic features.
That is, gestural study takes into account other linguistic as well
as non-linguistic (nonverbal) aspects of communication. Linguistic aspects
have been covered in all previous studies, since there have been always
attempts to establish correspondence between linguistic signs and gestural
signs. Use of other nonverbal features, in fact, a comprehensive coverage
and use of all other nonverbal aspects for an understanding of gestural
communication and for the preparation of gestural inventories appears
to be a contribution of Poyotos. Likewise, a gesture may also determine
both linguistic, and other nonlinguistic signs. In this way, all nonverbal
aspects, five of them listed above, are dependent on one another.
Ekman and Friesen, two important contributors to the study of nonverbal
communication in the contemporary scene of ours, propose five classes
of nonverbal behaviour (Ekman and Friesen, 1969): facial expressions
of emotion, regulators, adaptors, illustrators, and emblems. Note that
emphasis of gestural communication has now shifted from the study of
constitution of signs to a study of the psychological bases of gestural
communication.
There is a predominate role assigned to psychological performance of
gesture, although the classification offered does talk of constitutional
elements as well as social functions. For the former, emblems are a
fine example and, for the latter, the regulators are a good example.
Of the five, emblems are more or less gestures: 'Emblems are those
nonverbal acts which have a direct verbal translation, or dictionary
definition, usually consisting of a word or two, or perhaps a phrase.
An emblem may repeat, substitute, or contradict some part of the concomitant
verbal behavior; a crucial question in detecting an emblem is whether
it could be replaced, with a word or two without changing the information
conveyed'. In addition, the meaning of the emblem should be known to
most of the members of a group, class, subculture, or culture.
Also the emblems are used with a conscious intent to send a particular message to other persons who in their turn know that the message is deliberately conveyed. All these characteristics make gestural display a deliberate display.
Although answers are not provided, Ekman and Friesen raise several
questions which link study of gestural communication directly with the
concerns of theoretical developments in linguistics, psychology, and
psycholinguistics. For example, they raise the following questions,
which are currently debated within linguistics and psychology in relation
to human language:
What is the ontogeny of emblems? At what point do different emblems
become established in the infant's repertoire? How does the acquisition
of emblems interlace with the acquisition of verbal language? How are
emblems utilized in conversation? Are there regularities in which messages
are transmitted emblematically, and do these emblems substitute, repeat,
or qualify 'the spoken messages'?
Are there any universal emblems? Can we explain instances in which the same message is performed with a different motor action in two cultures? How are emblems related to American Sign Language? What is the phylogeny of emblems? While these questions link Ekman and Friesen's concerns with developments in linguistics and psychology, their insistence on the identification of the emblem repertoire as 'the most sensible first step which enables pursuit of all the questions' (Johnson, Ekman and Friesen, 1975) takes them back to the days of Col. Mallery in which preparation of the glossary of gestural signs dominated study of gestural communication. Since gestural signs in parts of the system are, indeed, open-ended, one wonders whether it will be possible at all to have a comprehensive glossary of emblems, especially when gestures could be spontaneously and idiosyncratically formed and understood.
In conclusion of this section, we present below the various methods
adopted so far in the study of gestural communication. The list is not
exhaustive, but is indicative of the general trends.
- Most of the early studies have been observational and descriptive.
- Questionnaire method and informant-elicitation method have been adopted.
- Open-ended narration by gestural signs is also encouraged.
- Spoken language is used as an aid.
- Use only of the sign language is also done to study gesture.
- Comparison with the gestures of deaf-mutes, and comparison with the characteristics of spoken language are also made.
- Anthropological tools are also used.
- Experimental investigations are also made, wherein the functions of gestures in relation to psychological states are investigated.
- Investigations of gesture for sociological analysis are also made.
- Help of artists is also sought and made use of.
- Identification of gestures presented is also sought.
- Linguistic models are also used: phonological, syntactic, and semantic analyses
are simulated in the analysis of gestural signs.
- Research based on developments in linguistics as regards grammatical structure is undertaken with regard to gestural signs.
- Collection and analysis of gestures as found in literary works and other texts is also done.
- Formal learning of gestures is yet another method of the study
of gestures.
CONTENTS PAGE
4. 5. Gesture in Aesthetic Arts
We restrict our discussion of gestural signs in aesthetic arts to the use of gestural signs in Indian elitist dances in general and Bharata Natyam in particular.
Dances in literate communities of India may be broadly classified into folk and elitist dances. The occurrence of gesture is more frequent and varied in elitist dances than in folk dances. Secondly, conventionality and arbitrariness mark the elitist dances more than they mark the folk dances.
Thirdly, most gestures in the folk dances are an accompaniment to the
rhythmic recurrence of sounds, whereas, gestures in elitist dances generally
accompany the 'sense' and/or is an illustration of the sense conveyed.
Fourthly, the gestures in elitist dance require conscious learning,
in addition to unconscious imitation, whereas gestures in folk dances
are acquired more or less in an unconscious, natural manner.
The learning of elitist dances is thus more institutionalized than the learning
of folk dances. Fifthly, although the elitist dances are also spatially
and temporally bound, in the sense that there are specified dances for
seasons and geographical conditions, and for specific themes, these
elitist dances can be and are performed in other times as well purely
as an aesthetic performance, whereas, folk dances are generally performed
in relation to the spatiotemporal set up prescribed.
Once they cross the set up and are performed, they attain the value
of pure entertainment just as elitist dances. In these latter conditions,
a transmutation of the functions take place. Gestural communication,
which is spatio-temporally bound as in folk dances, is less conventional
and arbitrary and more iconic and indexical.
When folk dances, bound to certain spatio-temporal conditions, are
performed outside these conditions, they begin to usurp the functions
of elitist dances. Elitist dances function more as a code in the sense
that they lend themselves for manipulation through addition, deletion,
change, etc., in deliberately contrived processes initiated by individuals,
whereas the folk dances generally focus more on preservation. Their
function as a code is found in their deliberate constraints not to function
as a code of manipulation.
Once folk dances are treated as a code, or only as a form that could
be manipulated in form as well as content, they begin to emerge as elitist
dances, individually designed. Some forms ms/stages of elitist dances
also could acquire this characteristic, but will still be considered
elitist because in the latter their conduct will be text-based, unlike
in the case of folk dances, in which oral tradition regulates the conduct.
Gestural communication in elitist dances is more advanced in the sense that the gestures employed in them are more numerous than the gestures employed in folk dances. Also, the gestures in elitist dances are more closely connected with affect displays than one finds in folk dances. While the upper limbs play a more crucial role in elitist dances to further accentuate the gestural communication processes, it is the whole body and the movement of the whole body that dominate performances in folk dances. Affect display via face always is an essential part of gestural communication by other parts of the body, in elitist dances.
Gestures used in elitist dances are explained/explainable by the performers, which cannot be said for the performance of folk dances. In other words, those who perform elitist dances are almost always aware of their use of gestures. Learning processes give the 'rationale'. These people know the 'meaning' of the gesture, as conveyed to them by their teachers and the text and/or interpreted by them.
They can repeat the gestures when asked to do so. The use of gestures
in elitist dances is an intentional, deliberate effort to communicate,
but the focus in folk dances appears to be more on self-expression and
participatory nature, not only in enjoyment through sight but also in
the act itself. In the elitist dances, audience participation through
act in the dances is not generally provided for, but in the folk dances,
there is always such an opening.
Most Indian elitist dances are religion-based in the sense that music
and dance have been traditionally seen as a medium to please gods. In
other words, the ultimate goal of dances in the elitist tradition is
to worship gods. This cannot be said of folk dances. The Vedas and Puranas
are full of instances which narrate the dances of gods, dances of an
elitist nature. The 'dances' of the demons are described/portrayed as
"crude" dances.
The creator of the dance (Bharat Natyam) and the chief dancer is one
of the three God heads-- Siva. He is worshipped, among other forms,
in His dancing posture. Vishnu, another supreme Godhead, is also known
for his dances. Krishna dances around with girls. He also danced on
the head of the Serpent Kalinga in the Yamuna river and kept the serpent
under control.
In heaven, in all the celebrations of gods, beautiful dames dance and please the gods. In short, Hindu mythology is full of dances, danseuses and gestures employed in dances. Since there is, in traditional Indian view, a direct correspondence between all aesthetic arts, notions as regards gesture, classifications of gesture, and their function in aesthetics and general communication are governed in a manner similar to notions in poetics, dramatics, sculpture, painting and so on.
There is a unity in arts and there is a unity of purpose for all the
arts. We present below, however, only the gestural communication in
Bharata Natyam as a representative sample of use of the gesture in all
the arts.
In India, there is a long and ancient tradition of the study of gesture
via dance and drama. The earliest treatise available now on dance and
drama (in fact, on the aesthetic arts including enjoyment of literature)
is the work in Sanskrit Natyasastra by Bharata Muni (certainly of pre-Christian
era; around 500 B.C.?) Apart from a number of commentaries on Natyasastra,
there are several other works in Sanskrit, such as Abhinaya Darpanam
that discuss theories of drama and present gesture employed in both
dance and drama. We present here an overall description of the use of
gestures as found mainly in Natyasastra.
To begin with, we should point out that gestures used in dance and
drama form more or less a closed system, that both natural and conventional
gestures are used in the Indian dance and that, since these gestures
form a more or less closed system, most gestures are polysemous. The
gestures are mostly an accompaniment to either a poetic composition
sung or a pantomime of a well-known story, and thus the polysemous ambiguity
is resolved.
Gestures are stylized and lend themselves to some variations in their
exhibition by individuals belonging to different schools/disciples of
a teacher and geographic regions. The dance uses both upper and lower
limbs, but the gestures by the parts of the upper limbs dominate. There
is always an insistence on the use of appropriate facial expressions
for each gesture. The use of facial expressions further contributes
to a resolution of ambiguity inherent in the use of the same gesture
for several meanings.
Gestures are not stationary in the sense that every gesture has a movement;
without movement, gesture cannot be seen. Also the concatenation of
sense and events is not possible without the movement. The Indian dance
consists mostly of hand gestures and (whole) bodily movements, although
other parts may also be used. Costume is important, but does not play
a direct role in gestural communication.
Gestures are given frontally, although the back of the body may be shown and used for gestural communication. Both the front and back of the hand may be used for gesturing. For the same physical gesture, various meanings can be ascribed based on directions of the movement of the gesture.
Some of the geometrical movements used are front/back, left/ right, straight line/curved line, straight line/zig-zag line, facing one another/back to back, gestures with one hand/gestures with both hands, one side of the body/both sides of the body, congruence between hand and leg of the same side of the body/congruence between hand and leg of opposite sides of the body.
According to Natyasastra, abhinayas (use
of gestures, etc.) are devised by experts for drawing out the sense
of songs and speeches in a play (IV: 265). [The reference is made to
Dr. Manmohan Ghosh's translation of Natyasastra, (Ghosh, 1967). The
Roman numeral refers to the chapter and the Arabic numerals to the verse.]
While this might or might not have been the original focus and functions
of gestures used, in actual current practice in Bharata Natyam, the
gestures do not have, for the most part, an expository function in relation
to the texts sung; it is the texts that are sung that perform the expository
function for an understanding of the gestures used.
Since abhinaya is devised by individuals (experts), in its origin,
abhinaya becomes artificial and thus it is conventionally
produced. And yet the conventionality is not based exclusively on artificially
created gestures alone, but is given to gestures drawn from natural
expressions as well, since Bharata Natyam makes use of natural gestures
for conventionally fixed meanings.
To the extent that the language of the text is not understood by the
spectators, one may say that the gestures of dance come to illuminate
the content of the text and enable the spectators to comprehend the
text. If the language of the text is understood and if the content of
the text is understood through the language in which it is composed,
the singing of the text then takes on the role of illuminating the gestures
of the dance and the gestures themselves bring to life the text in a
dynamic spectacular form.
Since gestures are an integral part of dance, we reach a point where
without gestures there is no dance. Thus, gestures become a mark of
identification of dance as a distinct aesthetic form. Note that our
suggestion that it is the oral text that performs the expository function
in relation to gestures employed in a dance is further supported by
Bharata Muni's dictum (IV:280; Ghosh, 1967) that instrumental music
should not be played when there is any song to be delineated by gestures,
perhaps because the instrumental music may drown-out the song, and thus
will deprive the gestures of their explanation by the oral text.
Whatever the interpretation and delineation of different roles of oral
texts and gestures may be, they have only a complementary role, a complemental
semiotic relationship. Note that the function of gesture is to make
a transmutation of the sense of the oral medium into the vision medium
and, by doing so, it forms an aesthetic genre.
Bharata Muni clearly states (IV:285-287; Ghosh, 1967) that a song is
to be sung and the female dancer should delineate the meaning of the
song by suitable gesture and translate the subject matter into a dance.
Again (IV:298, Gosh, 1967), the entire words of the song should be represented
first by gestures and then be shown by a dance. Thus, a codification
process in the progression of transmutation of sense from the oral medium
to the vision medium and from there to the elevation into an aesthetic
form is suggested here.
In addition, these steps of progression indicate that there was some distinction made between the composition of gesture and their integration in dance. Gestures, in addition to their expository function as regards songs, are also used as an expository and spectacular device for all other words.
Current practice generally links the gestural poses with dance, although
in some parts of the dance, the dancer could remain stationary and make
gestures appropriate to the words of the oral text. Bharata Muni (in
IV:303; Ghosh, 1967) gives a dictum that when in course of a song some
of its parts are repeated, the parts uttered first should be delineated
by gestures and the rest are translated into dance.
This dictum, while bringing out the complimentary roles of gestures
and the oral text, also points out that, in the performance of a dance,
a progression from presentation of individual gestures to a concatenation
of the same is aimed at.
When concatenation takes place, the pantomime of oral text is accomplished
and therein both gesture and oral text get entwined to lose their separate
existence and merge into a single aesthetic form. In other words, the
original transmutation from one to the other, from oral text into gesture,
is no more significant and together they are transmuted into another
world of existence. Thus, the use of gesture in arts perhaps has an
extra stage of transmutation over and above the transmutation taking
place between oral and gestural semiotic systems of communication.
The word abhinaya is generally translated as histrionic
representation. It means carrying the performance of a play to the point
of direct ascertainment of its meaning (V 111:6; Ghosh, 1967). Further,
abhinaya is so called because, in the performance of a play, it explains
the meaning of different things (VIII: 7; Ghosh, 1967). Note that in
these two verses also the expository function of gesture is emphasized.
Abhinaya, histrionic representation via gesture, etc., was meant originally
to clarify the song.
Histrionic representation is known to be four fold: Gestures (angika),
Words (aharya), Dresses/Make-up (aharya) and the Sattva (manifestations
of mental states). The gesture is of three kinds, namely, that of the
limbs (sarira), that of the face (mukhaja), and that related to different
movements of the entire body (cestakrta). Dramatic performance in its
entirety relates to six major limbs and six minor limbs.
The six major limbs are called anca and these are head, hands, breast,
sides, waist, and feet. The six minor limbs are called anca and these
are eyes, eyebrows, nose, lower lip, and chin. Note that the body parts
that are considered to be involved in gestural communication in dance
are chosen for their mobility/flexibility for use in movement and that
the chosen body parts have a greater visibility.
The gestures are called the sakha, and pantomiming through them is
called ankura. While these technical terms are not immediately relevant
to our discussion, assignation of roles to these two types by some scholars
is of some consequence in our work. For some scholars sakha stands for
gesture and posture in general and for some others it stands for the
flourish of the gesticulating hand (kara-vartana) preceding one's speech.
Ankura stands for the flourish of the gesticulating hand following speech.
In the former, one finds a greater emphasis on the supporting role of
the words for an interpretation of gesture and, in the latter, one finds
a greater emphasis on the supporting role of the gesture for an interpretation
of words.
Natyasastra and subsequent works list gestures of various numbers and
sorts for each major and minor limb. The numbers vary from limb to limb
and there does not seem to be any particular reason for this variation
except the functional use to which each limb is put. Along with the
gestures produced by the limbs, Natyasastra lists sixty-seven gestures
of hands. Of these, gestures of single hands are twenty-four in number,
those of combined hands are thirteen in number, and 'dance-hands' are
thirty in number. The gestures of dance-hands, 'as their name implies,
are obviously to be used in dance; but in course of acting too they
are often to be used along with other gestures (single and combined)
to create an ornamental effect. Unlike the single and combined hands
which must represent one single idea or object, the hands in the dance-hand
gestures are to be individually moved, not for representing any idea
or object, but for creating an ornamental effect in acting as well as
in dance' (Ghosh 1967).
Note further that Natyasastra distinguishes between the realistic (natural)
and the conventional gestures: 'If a play depends upon natural behavior
(in its characters) and is simple and not artificial, and has in its
(plot) profession and activities of the people and has (simple acting
and) no playful flourish of limbs and depends on men and women of different
types, it is called Realistic (lokadharmi).
If a play modifies a traditional story, introduces super-natural powers,
disregards the usual practice about the use of languages, requires acting
with graceful Angaharas, possesses characteristics of dance, requires
conventional enunciation, and is dependent on a heavenly scene and heaven-born
males, it is to be known as natyadharmi', (XIV:62-65; Ghosh, 1967).
The distinction between the natural and the conventional gestures is
recognized by Bharata Muni in several contexts. For example, while discussing
the different kinds of bead gestures (which are considered conventional),
Natyasastra also reports that there are many other gestures of the head
that are based on popular/natural practice.
This distinction between the natural and the conventional gestures,
and the provision made to make use of the same in drama and dance, change
the closed system characteristics of gestural communication in this
aesthetic form to some sort of an open system.
As an example of lokadharmi gesture, we may cite the use of Padmakosa
hand used to represent the lotus and similar flowers, and, for natya
dharmi gesture, most of the gestures employed in Bharata Natyam can
be cited. Natyadharmi gestures are often aimed at creating an ornamental
effect. In the actual use of gestures and their concatenation, the open-ended
elements of the gestural communication system come to the fore.
Also exigencies of the aesthetic art form facilitate this use. Bharata Muni recognizes this condition, while giving guidelines for the choice of hand gestures: 'In acting, hand gestures should be selected for their form, movement, significance, and class according to the personal judgment of the actor.
There is no hand gesture that cannot be used in indicating some idea. There are besides other popular gestures connected with other ideas, and they are also to be used along with the movements inspired by the Sentiments and the States. These gestures should be used by males as well as females with proper regard to place, occasion, the play undertaken and a suitability of their meaning' (IX: 153-157; Ghosh, 1967).
(Note that the assertion 'there is no hand gesture that cannot be used
in indicating some idea' is counter to the assessment of some present
day scholars, for example, Taylor, 1978.) From the reference to popular
gestures, it is clear that although gestures form a closed system in
dance, the provision to include gestures from lokadharmi makes the dance
an open system to a certain extent.
Gestures come to be alive because of their movements. Their representation
and concatenation depend on the movements, and the movements have a
connection with different Sentiments and States on the one hand, and
on the other, are manifested physically in three ways: Upwards, sideways,
and downwards.
The movements of hands should be used with embellishments by means of appropriate
expressions in the eyes, the eyebrows, and the face. The gestures may
have both conventional and natural movements. One should use the hand
gestures according to the popular practice (IX:161-163; Ghosh, 1967).
The movements of gestures are governed also by the social status of
individuals. In histrionic representation of gestures, the social status
of individuals, according to Natyasastra, determines the quantum as
well as the placement of gestures. (This notion, it may be noted, is
found in the real world also, even today in some form or the other.
We shall see this in the next section.)
The hand gestures of individuals of the superior category/status move
near their forehead, whereas, the gestures of the individuals occupying
a middle social status (rank) move around/at their chests. The individuals
of inferior social rank move their hand gestures in regions below the
chest.
Also note that Natyasastra prescribes that persons of superior rank will have
very little movement in their hand gestures, whereas, the individuals
of inferior rank should be portrayed as having profuse movements of
hand gestures.
In the case of individuals occupying a middle social rank, the movement
of hand gestures should be of a medium frequency. In addition, Natyasastra
prescribes that the hand gestures of persons of superior and middle
levels of social rank should conform to the characterization of gestures
as given in the Sastra (thus ascribing to these gestures learned, institutionalized,
and elitist status along with a dose of conventionality) in contrast
to the hand gestures of persons of inferior rank, which follow popular
practice and the individuals' own natural habit (IX: 6 1-66; Ghosh,
1967).
However, when occasions demand, wise people would make contrary uses
of hand gestures to suit the occasions (IX: 167, Ghosh, 1967). There
are also certain restrictions as to the use of hand gestures for the
expression of certain emotions. That is, for representation of certain
emotions, hand gestures are not seen as proper and thus other means
are to be used (IX:168-171; Ghosh, 1967).
(Compare this with the dictum in IX: 153-157 cited above.) This, indeed,
is a very interesting and significant allocation of functions. In it
we find an implicit recognition that the parts of the body are generally
allotted differential functions in the conduct of nonverbal communication
involving the use of gestures. This provision makes the use of gesture
in aesthetic arts, as well as in the natural, realistic world, different
from the use of gesture as an independent mode, as is found in American
sign language or in the language of deaf-mutes.
Finally, hand gestures in the acting are dependent on the expression
of the face, the eyebrows, and the eyes. There should be a proper coordination
between hand gestures and the look of the gesturer in the sense that
the gesturer's eyes and the look should be directed towards the points
at which the hand gestures are moving, and there should be proper stops
so that the meaning may be clearly expressed (seen) (IX:207, 172; Ghosh,
1967).
The gestures of other major limbs are as follows, according to Natyasastra.
The chest (breast) is of five kinds (slightly bent, unbent, shaking,
raised, and natural) and thus has five kinds of uses. The sides are
of five kinds (bent, raised, extended, turned round, and drawn away).
The uses are also of five kinds. The belly is of three kinds (thin,
depressed, and full) and its uses are also classified into three kinds.
The waist is of five kinds (turned aside, turned round, moved about,
shaken, and raised). Their significance is also classified into five
types. The thighs have five kinds (shaking, turning, motionless, springing
up, and turning round). The shank has five kinds (turned, bent, thrown
out, raised, and truned back). The feet are of five kinds (touching
the ground with the heels, placed on an even ground, the heels thrown
up, the heels on the ground, and the middle of the feet bent). The thighs,
shanks, and feet form a single category, with each having five different
kinds and uses.
Among the gestures of the minor limbs, the gesture of the head is of
thirteen kinds. There are thirty-six kinds of glances identified. Note
that the most numerous gestures are formed by hands (sixty-seven as
already reported) followed by eyes (thirty-six).
The eyeballs have gestures of nine kinds and the eyelids have nine
kinds of gestures and follow the movements of the eyeballs. The gestures
of the eyebrows, another minor limb, are in accordance with those of
the eyeballs and the eyelids. They are seven in number. The gestures
of the nose are of six kinds. There are six kinds of gestures of the
cheeks, six of the lower lips and seven of the chin.
The gestures of the mouth are six in number. Color of the face is also
treated as gesture and there are four kinds of gestures concerning the
color of the face. That gestural communication in dance (of the elitist
type) is dependent on facial expression is made clear by the dictum
in Natyasastra that the color of the face should be used to represent
the States and Sentiments; and although the acting is done with gestures
and postures (sakha), and the major and minor limbs, without proper
color of the face, it will not be charming (VIII: 161, 162; Ghosh, 1967).
The color of the face is the basis of the States and the Sentiments
(VIII: 164, 165; Ghosh, 1967). The gestures of the neck are of nine
kinds. Gestures of the neck are all to follow the gestures of the head
and the head gestures also are reflected in those of the neck. Note
that Natyasastra clearly stipulates the dependence of gestures based
on their proximity of origin, on the one hand, and their relevance for
interpretation, rather mutual interpretation, on the other. While head
and neck gestures are of the former type, the contribution of facial
expressions for an interpretation of gestures of other limbs is of the
latter category.
CONTENTS PAGE
5. Social Relevance of Gesture in Indian Societies
Throughout this discussion, for the description of every nonverbal communicative
mode, we had an eye on its implications for social and interpersonal
conduct. We have demonstrated the social bases and social functions
of nonverbal communicative acts.
Just as human languages become an integral part and indices of social rank
and behavior, gestural communication, apart from its use as a mere communication
channel and an art form in itself, is also used to exhibit implicitly
the underlying social relations. We shall present below some of these
functions of gestural communication in Indian communities.
First of all, verbal communication becomes appropriate and is considered dynamic
and 'living' in some sense only if gestures are made along with speech.
Proper intonation takes this role in speech in Indian communities.
Having no gestures at all with one's speech signifies something negative/defective--it
could mean reluctance, noninvolvement, non-cooperation, anger, disobedience,
revolt, etc., on the part of the individual who produces speech without
gestures. It could also mean an attempt to insult the addressee. At
the same time, use of abundant gestures along with one's speech is not
looked upon favorably either.
Abundance of gestures is allowed as a mark of individuality, but when
abundance is placed within a social rank matrix it takes on a negative
function and, as such, while the abundance of gestures is discouraged,
use of appropriate gestures is demanded in the contexts in which social
ranks are kept consciously.
Use of gestures in speech also has the function of announcing that speech is in progress and that the individual speaking is in a state of deliberate act of expression. Thus the gestures, when they accompany speech, have the function of announcing that a semiotic act is in progress.
Another important characteristic of gestural communication in Indian communities
seems to be the phenomenon of suppression of gestures/avoidance of gestures
in oral communicative acts. This suppression is again socially motivated
and is a consequence of demands made by factors, such as level of education,
locality of residence (urban/rural) and socialization processes of individual
castes. These factors may either work in concert with one another or
independent of one another.
Suppression of gestures in interpersonal communicative situations finds
correspondences in several other communicative modes. For example, in
speech by suppression of one's own social and regional characteristics,
the individual attains the mastery of standard speech, which carries
with it greater acceptance and prestige. In the use of colors, gaudy
and bright colors, more often than not, are associated with people of
ethnic/religious groups, with a sense of superiority on the subdued
color; in other words, suppression of the brilliance of colous becomes
the hallmark of some higher education and social status. The same is
the case in the choice of fragrance, flowers, and application of hair
oil. In the last mentioned item, we include both the quantity of oil
and the fragrance of oil applied on the hair.
Also note that brevity of speech and less oral expression are considered
a virtue. In all these communicative modes, suppression appears to be
a dominant phenomenon. This phenomenon of suppression, thus, is found
in a correspondingly natural manner in gestural communication as well,
and is linked with the factors listed above.
An important variable that appears to regulate the use of gestures in Indian communities is the superior/inferior opposition. Under this binary opposition, several relations, such as those of master/servant, elder/younger, male/female, husband/wife, and father/mother are also covered, in addition to assumed/projected superiority/inferiority between castes.
Use of gestures, particularly those of indexical nature referring to
the addressee, is prohibited or taken to be an insult to the addressee
and as revolt, etc. Gestures for beckoning become the privilege of the
superior. Note that these restrictions are found also in the use of
oral language. In normal communication contexts, it seems to be the
privilege of the superior to use the gestural communication. Use of
gestural communication itself by persons of inferior category appears
to be minimal.
There also appears to be a difference in the quantum of gestures employed
by men and women. In the rural context, the presence of individuals
of certain status of the male sex encourages use of nonverbal means
for communication by the females. In the most urbanized context, while
such compulsions do not generally exist, resort to gestures is made
as a mark of one's education and westernization by females. In general,
use of gestures as an adjunct to oral communication is found more among
the females of urbanized contexts with an inclination towards `westernization'
than among others.
This takes us to the question of conscious incorporation of gestures
in the oral communication processes, that is, borrowing of gestures
from contexts not one's own. Borrowing of gestures from folk traditions,
rural traditions and from people of lower socioeconomic strata is rare,
and this corresponds to behavioral patterns on other planes, including
oral communication.
However, unlike the borrowing of words from English and their use very
frequently and continuously all through one's life, borrowing of gestures
is not a continuing and cumulative process. Gestures are borrowed; they
become a mark of identity. They may even be a permanent fixture in one's
communication activity. And yet, they are more transitory in some sense
than the words borrowed from English. Furthermore, these borrowed gestures
have lesser penetrating power than the words borrowed in the sense that
the borrowed words reach even the deepest rural centers and the people
of the lowest social and economic strata, whereas, the borrowed gestures,
for some reason or another, do not go that far.
CONTENTS PAGE
References
Efron, David. 1941 (reissued in 1972). Gesture, Race, and Culture.
Mouton, The Hague.
Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. 1969. The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior:
Categories, Origins, Usage and Coding. Semiotica, 1 :
49-97.
Fant, L. 1964. Say It With Hands. Gallandar College Press,
Washington, DC.
Ghosh, M. 1967. The Natyasastra of Bharata Muni. (Translation).
Vols. 1 and 2. Manisha Granthalaya Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta.
Ljung, M. 1965. Principles of a Stratificational Analysis of the Plains
Indian Sign Language. International Journal of American Linguistics.
31 : 119-127.
Mallery, G. 1880. Introduction to the Study of Sign Language
Among the North American Indians as Illustrating the Gesture Speech
of Mankind. United States Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington,
DC. Reprinted in Umiker-Sebeok, D. J. and Sebeok, T. A. 1978.
Mallery, G. 1882. The Gesture Speech of Man. Proceedings of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Poyotos, F. 1975. Gesture Inventories: Fieldwork Methodology and Problems.
Semiotica. 21 : 295-338.
Taylor, A. R. 1978. Nonverbal Communication in Aboriginal North America
: The Plains Sign Language. In Umiker-Sebeok, D. J. and Sebeok, T. A.,
1978. Aboriginal Sign Language of the America and Australia.
Vol. 2. Plenum Press, New York.
Thirumalai, 1984 (manuscript). Aspects of Tamil Semiotics.
Umiker-Sebeok, D. J. and Sebeok, T. A., 1978. Aboriginal Sign
Language of the Americas and Australia. Vol. 2. Plenum Press,
New York.
West, LaMont. 1963. Aboriginal Sign Language : A Statement. In Stanner,
W. E. H. and Sheils, H. (Eds.) Australian Aboriginal Studies.
Oxford University Press, London. Also in Umker-Sebeok, D. J.
and Sebeok, T. A. 1978.
CONTENTS PAGE