Advertisement

Relating gesture to speech: reflections on the role of conditional presuppositions

  • Julie HunterEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

In his paper ‘Gesture Projection and Cosuppositions,’ Philippe Schlenker argues that co-verbal gestures convey not at-issue content by default and in particular, that they trigger conditional presuppositions. In this commentary, I take issue with both of these claims. Conditional presuppositions do not supply a systematic means for capturing the semantic contribution of a co-verbal gesture. Some gestures appear to contribute content inside of a negation when their associated speech content is likewise embedded; in other cases, co-verbal gestures arguably contribute unconditional content to the global level. When this happens, we can infer what might look like a conditional presupposition, but this inference follows naturally from general principles already at work in purely verbal discourse and does not justify the claim that gesture content is contributed to a conditional presupposition. Problems exposed in the discussion of conditional presuppositions show that we are not yet in a position to make a general claim about the at-issue status of co-verbal gestures.

Keywords

Co-verbal gesture Iconic gesture Gesture and speech Discourse 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Funding

Juan de la Cierva fellowship IJCI-2014-22059, funded by the Ministerio de Economía, Industria, y Competitividad, Spain.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

The author declares that the research in this paper did not involve human participants or animals.

References

  1. Alahverdzhieva, K., Lascarides, A., & Flickinger, D. (2018). Aligning speech and co-speech gesture in a constraint based grammar. Journal of Language Modelling, 5(3), 421–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ebert, C., & Ebert, C. (2014). Gestures, demonstratives, and the attributive/referential distinction. Talk given at Semantics and Philosophy in Europe (SPE 7), Berlin, June 28, 2014.Google Scholar
  3. Ebert, C., Evert, S., & Wilmes, K. (2011). Focus marking via gestures. In Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung (Vol. 15). Saabrücken.Google Scholar
  4. Fricke, E. (2012). Grammatik multimodal: Wie Wörter und Gesten zusammenwirken. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Brentari, D. (2016). Gesture, sign and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 1–82.Google Scholar
  6. Hunter, J., & Asher, N. (2016). Shapes of conversation and at-issue content. In M. Moroney, C. Little, J. Collard & D. Burgdorf (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 26, pp. 1022–1042).Google Scholar
  7. Jasinskaja, K. (2016). Salience and (not-)at-issue status of subordinate clauses. In Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 21). Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  8. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lascarides, A., & Stone, M. (2009a). Discourse coherence and gesture interpretation. Gesture, 9(2), 147–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lascarides, A., & Stone, M. (2009b). A formal semantic analysis of gesture. Journal of Semantics, 26(4), 393–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lücking, A., Bergman, K., Hahn, F., Kopp, S., & Rieser, H. (2013). Data-based analysis of speech and gesture: The bielefeld speech and gesture alignment corpus (SaGa) and its applications. Journal of Multimodal User Interfaces, 7(1–2), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Prévot, L., Vieu, L., & Asher, N. (2009). Une formalisation plus précise pour une annotation moins confuse: la relation d’élaboration d’entité. Journal of French Language Studies, 19(2), 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schlenker, P. (2018). Gesture projection and cosuppositions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 41, 295–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shanon, B. (1976). On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language. Foundations of Language, 14, 247–249.Google Scholar
  17. Syrett, K., & Koev, T. (2015). Experimental evidence for the truth conditional contribution and shifting information status of appositives. Journal of Semantics, 32, 525–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tieu, L., Pasternak, R., Schlenker, P., & Chemla, E. (2018). Co-speech gesture projection: Evidence from inferential judgments. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 3(1).Google Scholar
  19. von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The King of France is back!. In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond, (pp. 315–341). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GLiFUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.IRITUniversité Paul SabatierToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations