fpsyg-09-01651 September 6, 2018 Time: 19:32 # 1 REVIEW published: 10 September 2018 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01651 Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations? Cornelia Müller* Faculty of Social and Cultural Studies, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany The goal of the article is to offer a framework against which relations between gesture and sign can be systematically explored beyond the current literature. It does so by (a) reconstructing the history of the discussion in the field of gesture studies, focusing on three leading positions (Kendon, McNeill, and Goldin-Meadow); and (b) by formulating a position to illustrate how this can be achieved. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for systematic cross-linguistic research on multimodal use of language in its signed and spoken forms. Keywords: gesture and sign, McNeill’s gesture-sign continua, multimodality of language use, singular gestures, recurrent gestures, silent gestures, emblems, conventionalization processes INTRODUCTION Throughout the relatively short history of gesture studies, the relation between gesture and sign continues to figure as a central topic. For sign language studies, the question has politically been a highly delicate one, and it remains a vital issue in contemporary sign language research. Edited by: Fortunately, today, we are in a position to discuss the relation between gesture and sign against Marianne Gullberg, the solid background of sign language studies, leaving no doubts concerning the fundamentally Lund University, Sweden linguistic nature of signed languages (Kendon, 2004, 2008, 2014; Steinbach et al., 2012; Goldin- Reviewed by: Meadow and Brentari, 2017). Against this background, discussions of the relation between gesture Adam Kendon, and sign can be very openly reconsidered. University College London, United Kingdom Recent contributions to this discussion are the paper by Susan Goldin-Meadow and Diane Glenn David McNeill, Brentari “Gesture, sign, and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies,” University of Chicago, United States published in 2017, and Kendon’s (2014) “Semiotic diversity in utterance production and the *Correspondence: ‘concept’ of language.” The two publications come to very different conclusions concerning the Cornelia Müller relation between gesture and sign. While Kendon’s work on gesture and sign lays out a multitude [email protected] of ways in which gestures and sign “are on common ground” (Kendon, 2004, chapter 15), Goldin- Meadow highlights differences between gesture and sign early on, postulating a ‘cataclysmic break’ Specialty section: between the two (Singleton et al., 1995). Informed by McNeill’s theory of gesture, this idea involves This article was submitted to a focus on spontaneously created gestures and on gestures that “predict learning” (Goldin-Meadow Language Sciences, and Brentari, 2017, p. 1). a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology Kendon, on the other hand, used the term ‘gesture’ in a much broader sense. In his 2004 book, Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance, he suggests to use the term ‘gesture’ as “a label for Received: 15 January 2018 actions that have the features of manifest deliberate expressiveness” (Kendon, 2004, p. 15; see Accepted: 17 August 2018 Published: 10 September 2018 Müller, 2014a for a minute appreciation of Kendon’s notion of gestures as movements displaying deliberate expressiveness). In 2013 he suggests employing “utterance visible action” to refer to what Citation: Müller C (2018) Gesture and Sign: is commonly referred to as ‘gesture’: “In this essay, I offer a survey of the main questions with which Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic I have been engaged in regard to “gesture,” or, as I prefer to call it, and as will be explained below, Relations?. Front. Psychol. 9:1651. “utterance visible action.” (Kendon, 2013, p. 7). His work on ‘utterance visible action’ concentrates doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01651 on hand movements, as indicated in an article the following year: “And although visible bodily Frontiers in Psychology| www.frontiersin.org 1 September 2018| Volume 9| Article 1651 fpsyg-09-01651 September 6, 2018 Time: 19:32 # 2 Müller Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break? actions in the torso, head and face can and do play roles in what is formulated adopts a concept of language as inherently is said in an utterance, here I shall concentrate upon the way multimodal, usage-based, and dynamic (Müller, 2007a, 2008; hand actions interact with what is spoken in the production of Müller et al., 2013a) and assumes an understanding of gesture content.” (Kendon, 2014, p. 4). Kendon comes to the conclusion as deliberate expressive movement (Müller, 2014a). The that the question of how gesture and sign relate must be shifted to term gesture covers the full spectrum of co-speech gestures: “how visible bodily action is used in utterance construction” and singular, recurrent, and emblematic (Müller, 2010, 2017). “becomes as much a part of the study of speakers as, necessarily, The three types of gestures differ with regard to forms and it is already a part of the study of signers” (Kendon, 2014, degrees of conventionalization and with regard to their p. 13). typical linguistic and communicative functions. Singular Rather than starting with the current positions in that gestures are created on the spot; although they are based debate, this article offers a historical reconstruction of the on a culturally shared repertoire of techniques of gesture discussion of the gesture-sign relation carried out in the creation (e.g., gestural modes of representation Müller, 1998a,b, field of gesture studies. Why it is useful to look back in 2014b, 2016), the specific realizations in a given context close detail? We tend to assume, particularly in psychology are rather free and spontaneous. Recurrent gestures “merge and the cognitive sciences, that academic knowledge advances conventional and idiosyncratic elements and occupy a place continuously, making publications quickly look ‘outdated’ and between spontaneously created singular and emblems as fully ‘overtaken’ by more recent ones. The underlying assumption conventionalized gestural expressions on a continuum of is that more recent publications are the more knowledgeable increasing conventionalization,” and “involve emergent de- and offer the most up to date state of the art of academic compositions of gestural movements into smaller concomitant research. Sometimes, however, the most recent debates carry gestalts” (Müller, 2017, p. 276). Emblematic gestures are the burden of ‘older’ discussions – often implicitly. For fully conventionalized gestural movements. Functionally, the discussion concerning the relation between gesture and the three types of gestures differ in that singular gestures sign this is definitely the case. One goal of this paper is mostly serve ‘lexical’ functions, for instance as attributes therefore to exemplify that a close reading of the history of (Fricke, 2013); recurrent gestures mostly serve pragmatic a scholarly discussion may not only help evaluate current functions (Bressem and Müller, 2014a; Ladewig, 2014b), positions, but indeed may still offer valuable insights, ideas, as do emblematic gestures (Teßendorf, 2013). However, concepts or analytical criteria to work with. Given the scope while singular and recurrent gestures operate upon spoken of this paper, the focus is on the discussion of the relation language utterances (contributing semantically or meta- between gesture and sign as it was led in the field of gesture communicatively), emblems mostly realize full speech-acts, studies. for example the ‘okay gesture’ (Müller, 2010, 2014c). These Note that what is presented here is a close reading of the gestural speech-acts can entail vocalizations or sometimes writings of Kendon, McNeill, and Goldin-Meadow (and also be paralleled by a verbal speech-act (sometimes this is the her 2017 co-author Diane Brentari). Put differently, it is an case with insults). Often they are used to replace a spoken analysis of their lines or argumentation as presented in the language utterance. The three kinds of gestures operate as texts. It is not a reconstruction of their current opinions. It prototype categories, that is, they are not separated by sharp aims instead at presenting a history of the development of boundaries, their relations are dynamic. Throughout this an academic discussion on the relation between gesture and paper the terms ‘singular gestures,’ ‘recurrent gestures,’ and sign from a point of view of linguistic gesture studies (Müller ‘emblematic gestures’ are used as meta-terms to keep track of the et al., 2013b). The paper thus presents the author’s view of the different ways in which the term ‘gesture’ is used in the various arguments. To substantiate this reconstruction, many quotations frameworks discussed. Against this theoretical background, of the original formulations are included. The figures in the dynamic relations between gesture and sign are discussed. article are analyses of argumentations as reconstructed by the Such relations concern (a) historical change from gesture to author. sign, and (b) synchronic comparison of spoken and signed The paper begins with a reconstruction of the relation languages. The former includes lexicalization processes; the between gesture and sign in three seminal strands of work: latter involves functional integration of gestures within a signed Kendon on gestures, visible actions as utterances, which or spoken utterance