Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T06:40:41.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to distinguish gesture from sign: New technology is not the answer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2017

Karen Emmorey
Karen Emmorey*
Affiliation:
School of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92120. kemmorey@mail.sdsu.eduhttp://slhs.sdsu.edu/llcn/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Linguistic and psycholinguistic tests will be more useful than motion capture technology in calibrating the borders between sign and gesture. The analogy between motion capture (mocap) technology and the spectrograph is flawed because only vocal articulators are hidden. Although information about gradience and variability will be obtained, the technology provides less information about linguistic constraints and categories. Better models are needed to account for differences between co-speech and co-sign gesture (e.g., different degrees of optionality, existence of beat gestures).

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e54
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Emmorey, K. & Herzig, M. (2003) Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In: Perspectives on classifier constructions in signed languages, ed. Emmorey, K., pp. 221–46. Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilger, A. I., Loucks, T., Quinto-Pozos, D. & Dye, M. (2015) Second language acquisition across modalities: Production variability in adult L2 learners of American Sign Language. Second Language Research 31(3):375–88. doi: 10.1177/0267658315570648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hostetter, A. B. & Alibali, M. (2008) Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Journal of Memory and Language 15(3):495–14.Google Scholar
Jantunen, T. (2013) Signs and transitions: Do they differ phonetically and does it matter? Sign Language Studies 13(2):211–37.Google Scholar
Kita, S. & Özyürek, A. (2003) What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language 48:16–32.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992) Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Puupponen, A., Wainio, T., Burger, B. & Jantunen, T. (2015) Head movements in Finnish Sign Language on the basis of motion capture data: A study of the form and function of nods, nodding, head thrusts, and head pulls. Sign Language and Linguistics 18(1):41–89.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2011) Iconic agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37:223–34. doi: 10.1515/thli.2011.017.Google Scholar
Tyrone, M. & Mauk, C. E. (2010) Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics 38:317–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed