An important conclusion to be drawn from Goldin-Meadow & Brentari's (G-M&B's) article is that languages, spoken and signed, are semiotically diverse systems. As they show, there is increasing recognition that sign languages are incompletely described using the same framework as that used for spoken languages. Although there are many features of sign comparable to those found in spoken languages, there are also expressions that lie outside this framework. To mention two of their examples, Duncan (Reference Duncan2005) described signers modifying signs to express meanings not given by a lexical sign in its citation form; and Schembri et al. (Reference Schembri, Jones and Burnham2005) observed that in classifier constructions, although the referent referred to by a classifier (vehicle, person, etc.) uses a categorically distinct handshape, this handshape can be moved about to depict the behaviour of the referent, rather than describing it with discrete morphemes. In addition, speakers, ignorant of sign, asked to express the same thing, but with hands only, did not use standardised handshapes (no surprise), but depicted the referents’ behaviour much as did the signers, showing that in the kinesic medium signers and speakers use similar methods for depictions of this sort. G-M&B also mention studies that show that speakers, by modifying their vocal expression – loudness, pitch, speed – are able to express meanings beyond what is in words alone. In producing utterances, signers and speakers both use a range of different semiotic devices, relying upon expressions with categorial referents as well as those that are gradient. As G-M&B say, this leads us to question whether the meaning of “language” should not be changed. Others have also raised this point. For example, Liddell (Reference Liddell2003, p. 362) wrote that “spoken and signed languages both make use of multiple types of semiotic elements…our understanding of what constitutes language has been much too narrow.”
I argue in the same way (Kendon Reference Kendon2014), showing that manual actions that speakers often use while speaking, when contributing directly to an utterance's referential content, may be seen as elements in their utterance's construction. Just as signers, using several different body articulators differentially in producing utterances may engage in so-called “simultaneous constructions” (Vermeerbergen et al. Reference Vermeerbergen, Leeson and Crasborn2007), so speakers can do the same, not only vocally, but also with their kinesic resources. Parallels and differences in how utterances are constructed by speakers and by signers can be more fully understood when we consider not only speakers’ vocal productions, but also the kinesics they use. In this way we can develop precise descriptions of how and when these resources are employed and how their semiotic properties vary by circumstance of use and how they differ between signers and speakers.
In the target article here being commented on, the authors make use of “gesture” which they tend to regard as categorically different from “sign.” I think this is unfortunate. “Gesture” is so muddied with ambiguity, and theoretical and ideological baggage, that its use in scientific discourse impedes our ability to think clearly about how kinesic resources are used in utterance production and interferes with clarity when comparing signers and speakers. The authors refer to my article (Kendon Reference Kendon2008) wherein I argued that we should get rid of the categories “gesture” and “sign” and proposed, instead, that we develop a comparative semiotics of visible bodily action (kinesis), as it is used in utterances by speakers and by signers. To do this, I suggested, would resolve and clarify the otherwise rather fraught discussions of how “gesture” and “sign” are related, as well as the problems encountered when, in a signed utterance, we sometimes have difficulty in deciding whether a given expression is a “gesture” or a “sign.” Visible bodily action in utterance is semiotically diverse in both speakers and signers. Our task as analysts is to set about developing a differentiated vocabulary describing this diversity and to undertake comparative studies of the contexts in which these different forms are used.
G-M&B say (para. 4) that my article (Kendon Reference Kendon2008) provides “an excellent review” of what has led “gesture” and “sign” to be considered distinct categories (and they say they agree with it), yet they seem to have missed the implications of that review. In that review I pointed out the different ways in which the term “gesture” has been used, showing the vagueness of the concept that this word refers to. The authors’ conclusion was that my approach might lead me to blur necessary distinctions. A closer consideration of what I had actually written in that article (and also of what I have written elsewhere about “sign” and “gesture” – e.g., Kendon Reference Kendon1980a, Reference Kendon and Poyatos1988a, Reference Kendon1988c, Reference Kendon2004, Reference Kendon2008, Reference Kendon2012, Reference Kendon2014, Reference Kendon and Allen2015) might have allowed them to see that I have never been in danger of such blurring. On the other hand, looking at how they employ the word “gesture” in their target article, we find that, like many other writers, they use it in several different ways but without seeming to notice that they do so. For example, G-M&B define “gesture” as “manual movements that speakers produce when they talk” (para. 3), later they indicate (sect. 4.2, para. 3) that gestural forms in signing are “analog and gradient.” But then they say that hearing non-signers “can invent gestures that resemble signs” (sect. 4.2, para. 6). They talk of “imagistic gestures” and at one point they say “there is gesture in the oral modality” (sect. 7.2, para. 2). It is thus not clear what their concept of “gesture” amounts to.
As I have already said, because of the ambiguity of the word “gesture,” because it often embraces many different phenomena and thus encourages one not to think about the differences between them, and because of the theoretical and ideological connotations this word often brings with it, its use impedes clear discussion and makes more difficult the recognition of both the continuities and discontinuities in the various ways humans employ kinesis as they engage in languaging or utterance production. The comparative semiotic approach that I propose would make for better progress in our understanding of these matters.
An important conclusion to be drawn from Goldin-Meadow & Brentari's (G-M&B's) article is that languages, spoken and signed, are semiotically diverse systems. As they show, there is increasing recognition that sign languages are incompletely described using the same framework as that used for spoken languages. Although there are many features of sign comparable to those found in spoken languages, there are also expressions that lie outside this framework. To mention two of their examples, Duncan (Reference Duncan2005) described signers modifying signs to express meanings not given by a lexical sign in its citation form; and Schembri et al. (Reference Schembri, Jones and Burnham2005) observed that in classifier constructions, although the referent referred to by a classifier (vehicle, person, etc.) uses a categorically distinct handshape, this handshape can be moved about to depict the behaviour of the referent, rather than describing it with discrete morphemes. In addition, speakers, ignorant of sign, asked to express the same thing, but with hands only, did not use standardised handshapes (no surprise), but depicted the referents’ behaviour much as did the signers, showing that in the kinesic medium signers and speakers use similar methods for depictions of this sort. G-M&B also mention studies that show that speakers, by modifying their vocal expression – loudness, pitch, speed – are able to express meanings beyond what is in words alone. In producing utterances, signers and speakers both use a range of different semiotic devices, relying upon expressions with categorial referents as well as those that are gradient. As G-M&B say, this leads us to question whether the meaning of “language” should not be changed. Others have also raised this point. For example, Liddell (Reference Liddell2003, p. 362) wrote that “spoken and signed languages both make use of multiple types of semiotic elements…our understanding of what constitutes language has been much too narrow.”
I argue in the same way (Kendon Reference Kendon2014), showing that manual actions that speakers often use while speaking, when contributing directly to an utterance's referential content, may be seen as elements in their utterance's construction. Just as signers, using several different body articulators differentially in producing utterances may engage in so-called “simultaneous constructions” (Vermeerbergen et al. Reference Vermeerbergen, Leeson and Crasborn2007), so speakers can do the same, not only vocally, but also with their kinesic resources. Parallels and differences in how utterances are constructed by speakers and by signers can be more fully understood when we consider not only speakers’ vocal productions, but also the kinesics they use. In this way we can develop precise descriptions of how and when these resources are employed and how their semiotic properties vary by circumstance of use and how they differ between signers and speakers.
In the target article here being commented on, the authors make use of “gesture” which they tend to regard as categorically different from “sign.” I think this is unfortunate. “Gesture” is so muddied with ambiguity, and theoretical and ideological baggage, that its use in scientific discourse impedes our ability to think clearly about how kinesic resources are used in utterance production and interferes with clarity when comparing signers and speakers. The authors refer to my article (Kendon Reference Kendon2008) wherein I argued that we should get rid of the categories “gesture” and “sign” and proposed, instead, that we develop a comparative semiotics of visible bodily action (kinesis), as it is used in utterances by speakers and by signers. To do this, I suggested, would resolve and clarify the otherwise rather fraught discussions of how “gesture” and “sign” are related, as well as the problems encountered when, in a signed utterance, we sometimes have difficulty in deciding whether a given expression is a “gesture” or a “sign.” Visible bodily action in utterance is semiotically diverse in both speakers and signers. Our task as analysts is to set about developing a differentiated vocabulary describing this diversity and to undertake comparative studies of the contexts in which these different forms are used.
G-M&B say (para. 4) that my article (Kendon Reference Kendon2008) provides “an excellent review” of what has led “gesture” and “sign” to be considered distinct categories (and they say they agree with it), yet they seem to have missed the implications of that review. In that review I pointed out the different ways in which the term “gesture” has been used, showing the vagueness of the concept that this word refers to. The authors’ conclusion was that my approach might lead me to blur necessary distinctions. A closer consideration of what I had actually written in that article (and also of what I have written elsewhere about “sign” and “gesture” – e.g., Kendon Reference Kendon1980a, Reference Kendon and Poyatos1988a, Reference Kendon1988c, Reference Kendon2004, Reference Kendon2008, Reference Kendon2012, Reference Kendon2014, Reference Kendon and Allen2015) might have allowed them to see that I have never been in danger of such blurring. On the other hand, looking at how they employ the word “gesture” in their target article, we find that, like many other writers, they use it in several different ways but without seeming to notice that they do so. For example, G-M&B define “gesture” as “manual movements that speakers produce when they talk” (para. 3), later they indicate (sect. 4.2, para. 3) that gestural forms in signing are “analog and gradient.” But then they say that hearing non-signers “can invent gestures that resemble signs” (sect. 4.2, para. 6). They talk of “imagistic gestures” and at one point they say “there is gesture in the oral modality” (sect. 7.2, para. 2). It is thus not clear what their concept of “gesture” amounts to.
As I have already said, because of the ambiguity of the word “gesture,” because it often embraces many different phenomena and thus encourages one not to think about the differences between them, and because of the theoretical and ideological connotations this word often brings with it, its use impedes clear discussion and makes more difficult the recognition of both the continuities and discontinuities in the various ways humans employ kinesis as they engage in languaging or utterance production. The comparative semiotic approach that I propose would make for better progress in our understanding of these matters.