Advertisement

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 73–88 | Cite as

Do Iconic Hand Gestures Really Contribute to the Communication of Semantic Information in a Face-to-Face Context?

  • Judith Holler
  • Heather Shovelton
  • Geoffrey Beattie
Original Paper

Abstract

Previous research has shown that iconic gestures are effective at communicating semantic information, particularly about the size and relative position of objects. However, the conclusions of these experiments have been somewhat limited by the fact that the methodology has typically involved presenting gesture–speech samples on video rather than in an actual face-to-face context. Because these different viewing conditions can impact on addressees’ behavior and perception, and therefore potentially impact on the amount of information they receive from gestures, the present study compares the communicative effectiveness of iconic gestures when viewed in a face-to-face context compared to when viewed on video. The results are quite striking in that gestures seemed at least as effective, and in some cases even more effective at communicating position and size information when they occurred in the face-to-face condition compared to video.

Keywords

Iconic gesture Face-to-face communication Semantic features Size information Relative position information 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers, as well as Prof. Judith Hall, for their invaluable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. We would also like to thank Lucy Treanor for her assistance in collecting the data, William Newell for his invaluable acting performances, as well as the participants who took part in this investigation. The research was funded through a grant from the Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences at the University of Manchester awarded to Judith Holler. During the duration of this study, Geoffrey Beattie and Heather Shovelton were supported by a research grant from the Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-22-1917).

References

  1. Argyle, M. (1975). Bodily communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Argyle, M., & Ingham, R. (1972). Gaze, mutual gaze, and proximity. Semiotica, 1, 32–49.Google Scholar
  4. Beattie, G. (1983). Talk: An analysis of speech and non-verbal behaviour in conversation. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beattie, G. (2003). Visible thought: The new psychology of body language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Beattie, G., & Shovelton, H. (1999a). Do iconic hand gestures really contribute anything to the semantic information conveyed by speech? An experimental investigation. Semiotica, 123, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beattie, G., & Shovelton, H. (1999b). Mapping the range of information contained in the iconic hand gestures that accompany spontaneous speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 438–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beattie, G., & Shovelton, H. (2001). An experimental investigation of the role of different types of iconic gesture in communication: A semantic feature approach. Gesture, 1, 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beattie, G., & Shovelton, H. (2002). An experimental investigation of some properties of individual iconic gestures that mediate their communicative power. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 179–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beattie, G., & Shovelton, H. (2005). Why the spontaneous images created by the hands during talk can help make TV advertisements more effective. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 21–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beattie, G., & Shovelton, H. (in press). An exploration of the other side of semantic communication. How the spontaneous movements of the human hand add crucial meaning to narrative. Semiotica.Google Scholar
  12. Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butterworth, B. (1975). Hesitation and semantic planning in speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ekman, P. (1999). Facial expressions. In T. Dalgleish & T. Power (Eds.), The handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 301–320). Sussex, UK: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ancoli, S. (1980). Facial signs of emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1125–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Graham, J. A., & Argyle, M. (1975). A cross-cultural study of the communication of extra-verbal meaning by gestures. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 1, 33–39.Google Scholar
  21. Gullberg, M. (2003). Eye movements and gestures in human interaction. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eyes: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movements (pp. 685–703). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Gullberg, M., & Holmqvist, K. (1998). Focus on gesture: Visual attention towards gestures in conversation. LUCS, Lund: Department of Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  23. Gullberg, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2006). What speakers do and what addressees look at: Visual attention to gestures in human interaction live and on video. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14, 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holler, J. (2003). Semantic and pragmatic aspects of representational gestures: Towards a more unified model of communication. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Holler, J., & Beattie, G. (2002). A micro-analytic investigation of how iconic gesture and speech represent core semantic features in talk. Semiotica, 142, 31–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holler, J., & Beattie, G. (2003). Pragmatic aspects of representational gestures: Do speakers use them to clarify verbal ambiguity for the listener? Gesture, 3, 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kendon, A. (1980). Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In M. Ritchie Key (Ed.), The relationship of verbal and nonverbal communication (pp. 207–227). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  29. Kendon, A. (2000). Language and gesture: Unity or duality? In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 47–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 92, 350–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Riseborough, M. G. (1981). Physiographic gestures as decoding facilitators: Three experiments exploring a neglected facet of communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 172–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roebers, C. M., Gelhaar, T., & Schneider, W. (2004). ‘It’s magic!’ The effects of presentation modality on children’s event memory, suggestibility, and confidence judgments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 320–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rogers, W. T. (1978). The contribution of kinesic illustrators toward the comprehension of verbal behaviors within utterances. Human Communication Research, 5, 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thierry, K. L., & Spence, M. J. (2004). A real-life event enhances the accuracy of preschoolers’ recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith Holler
    • 1
  • Heather Shovelton
    • 1
  • Geoffrey Beattie
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Psychological SciencesUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations