Heather Brookes On Gestures and Emblems - 2005

Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 20442085
www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
What gestures do: Some communicative functions

of quotable gestures in conversations
among Black urban South Africans
Heather Brookes
Child, Youth, and Family Development, Human Sciences Research Council,
Private Bag X41, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
Received 25 October 2003; received in revised form 18 November 2004; accepted 11 March 2005
Abstract
Using video-recordings of spontaneous conversations among Black urban South Africans, the use
of three quotable gestures/emblems is analyzed. Characteristics of their use in relation to speech are
established showing that quotable gestures are multifunctional, and fulfill substantive, interactive,
and discourse functions simultaneously. Implications for theories on the relationship between gesture
and speech and processes of speechgesture production are discussed. Data presented suggest that the
Growth Point model of speechgesture production has the most explanatory power, but it needs to
extend the central notion of context to fully explain the nature of gestural behavior. Questions related
to the emergence of quotable gestures in terms of origin, conventionalization, and detachability from
speech, the relationship of quotable gestures to other forms of gesture, and the categorization of
gestures into gestural typologies are also addressed.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Quotable gestures; South Africa; Function; Speechgesture production; Conventionalization;

Typologies
1. Introduction
Scholars of gesture have typically distinguished between gestures that can be recalled
and glossed independently of speech and gestures that cannot. The former have been
E-mail address: HBrookes@hsrc.ac.za.
0378-2166/$ see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.006
H. Brookes / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 20442085 2045
referred to as symbolic gestures (Efron, 1972; Poggi and Zomparelli, 1987; Calbris, 1990),
emblems (Ekman and Friesen, 1969) or quotable gestures (Kendon, 1990, 1992a).
Although the use of such gestures is widely recognized and a number of lists from different
groups around the world have been published (see Payrato, 1993 for a detailed bibliography
of published repertoires), little is known about how people use these gestures in everyday
interactions. Except for Sherzers systematic observations on the use of the pointed-lip
gesture among the Cuna Indians (1972) and the thumbs-up gesture in Brazil (1991),
Driessens (1992) work on emblematic gestures in rural Andalusia, and more recently,
Brookes (2001) analysis of the clever gesture in South Africa, analyses of quotable gesture
use in spontaneous communicative situations are rare. Moreover, few studies have
systematically examined the use of quotable gestures in conjunction with spoken language.
Consequently, we have little understanding as to what these gestures afford their users as a
means of communication (Kendon, 1993: 7), what circumstances promote their use, how
they function in relation to spoken language, the relationship of these gestures to other forms
of gesticulation, and how they become detachable from speech.
Previous research on gesture in relation to spoken language shows that gestures function
in a variety of ways in conjunction with speech. Gestures can visually represent aspects of
what is said. They may depict concrete objects, actions, and events, or their forms may be
metaphorical in representing abstract concepts (McNeill, 1992). Gestures also give greater
specificity to spoken meaning (Bavelas, 1992; Kendon, 1997; McNeill, 1987, 1992;
Muller, 1994) and provide additional meaning to that expressed in speech (Bavelas et al.,
1992; De Fornel, 1992; Kendon, 1997; McNeill, 1992).
Besides expressing semantic content, there are also gestures that have discoursal-
pragmatic functions in that they mark aspects of discourse structure (Kendon, 1995;
McNeill, 1992). McNeill (1992) shows how beats index words or phrases as significant,
mark unfolding discourse structure, or function as cohesive gestures. He describes how
cohesive gestures, through gestural repetition, link thematically related spoken units that
are temporally separated. Cohesive gestures can be beats, iconic, metaphoric, or pointing
gestures. Kendon (1995) identifies two specific gestural forms that function as discourse
structure markers in Southern Italian communication. The finger bunch marks topic
from comment, while the ring gives prominence to segments of speech where
something specific is said in contrast to generalities or an opposing statement. Both
gestural forms can also express specific meanings independently of speech, suggesting that
their functioning as gesticulations and as quotable gestures should not be understood as
constituting different types, but rather as the same gestures varying in their level of
conventionalization and detachability from speech (Kendon, 1995).
Gestures also have interpersonal functions (Halliday, 1985). They can explicitly indicate
type of speech act and express illocutionary force. In addition, they show speakers attitudes
towards their own utterances and specify the response expected from their interlocutors
(Kendon, 1995, 2000). Streeck and Hartge (1992) describe a gesture in Ilakano
communication that shows what kind of talk the speaker will engage in once he/she has
a turn. Kendon (1995) describes how the Mano a borsa purse hand and the Mani giunte
joined hands in Southern Italy, indicate a specific type of question and express an appeal or
entreaty, respectively. Bavelas et al. (1992, 1995) identify gestures that cross-reference
utterance content to conversational theme, indicate understanding, and manage turn-taking.
2046 H. Brookes / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 20442085
Studies have also examined the temporal relationship of gesture to speech (Beattie and
Aboudan, 1994; Butterworth and Beattie, 1978; Butterworth and Hadar, 1989; Morrel-
Samuels and Krauss, 1992; Nobe, 2000; Schegloff, 1984) and implications of gesture
speech timing for mental processes of spoken language and gesture production as well as
theories about the relationship between gesture and speech (De Ruiter, 2000; Krauss et al.,
2000; McNeill, 2000). Earlier work claims that most representational gestures have their
onset during pauses in speech (Beattie and Aboudan, 1994; Butterworth and Beattie,
1978; Butterworth and Hadar, 1989). However, later studies show that the majority of
representational gestures originate during speech articulation (McNeill, 1985, 1992; Nobe,
2000). Theories of gesturespeech production based on earlier findings assume gesture
speech timing is symptomatic of breakdown in the speech production process.
Consequently, the role of gestures as an aid to speech production is the basis of
gesturespeech production models, particularly modularity-based information-processing
models (Butterworth and Beattie, 1978; Butterworth and Hadar, 1989; Feyereisen and de
Lannoy, 1991; Krauss et al., 2000; De Ruiter, 2000). Researchers have taken this role both
as evidence for an integrated model of speech and gesture (Morrel-Samuels and Krauss,
1992; Krauss et al., 2000) and as evidence of speech and gesture as independent systems
(Levelt et al., 1985). More recent work by Mayberry and Jaques (2000), McNeill (2000),
and Nobe (2000) suggests that gesture and speech are synchronized around a basic unit of
meaning called the Growth Point that distinguishes what is salient from the immediate
context (McNeill, 1992, 2000; McNeill and Duncan, 2000). Gesture and speech integrate to
express the mental construction of ideas where focus and background shift as discourse
unfolds. Thus, gesture and speech are part of a unitary system of expression (Kendon, 1972,
1980, 1997; McClave, 1991; McNeill, 1985, 1992; Nobe, 1996; Schegloff, 1984).
Much of the work cited above focuses on improvisational gestures or gesticulations that
do not occur independently of speech. In the case of codified representational gestures that
can be used and understood without spoken language, when do they occur in conjunction
with speech, what functions do they fulfill, and how does their function and occurrence
relate to immediate communicative and interpersonal purposes, norms of interaction, and
the wider social contexts shaping communicative behavior? The aim of this paper is to
begin to address these questions by describing the characteristics of quotable gesture use at
the discoursal level in spontaneous communicative situations. This analysis may contribute
to our understanding of the relationship of quotable gestures to improvisatory
gesticulation, the development of quotable gestures both in terms of conventionalization
and detachability from speech, processes of speech and gesture production, the nature of
the relationship between gesture and spoken language, as well as the role of situational and
social factors in shaping gestural behavior.
1.1. Data, context, and methodology
Data for this paper were collected in a formerly Black urban residential area commonly
known as a township outside Johannesburg in the province of Gauteng, South Africa. In
this region, gesture is a prominent feature of everyday communication among Black urban
South Africans across speakers of all nine African languages, and a large repertoire of
quotable gestures is in use. There are approximately 143 gestures that can function
independently of speech, but the repertoire is by no means static, with gestures falling into
disuse and new ones emerging from time to time. Major semantic themes of the gestural
lexicon focus on women, sex, alcohol, drugs and money, and a large proportion of gestures
express comments about the self, others and states of affairs as well as commands, requests
and insults (Brookes, 2004). Black urban South Africans use quotable gestures to
communicate over distances, to participate in multiple exchanges simultaneously, to
communicate secretly, and in conjunction with spoken language. However, the repertoire
and extent of gestural use differ across age, gender and situational context.
Gestural use and the gestural repertoire is most highly elaborated in the communicative
interactions of male youth between the ages of 18 and 25 years, particularly in conjunction
with a male youth argot sometimes referred to as Iscamtho. Iscamtho utilizes the most
common local African language(s) spoken in the townships as its grammatical base, most
often Zulu as the majority language, but also South Sotho and Tswana.1 It draws its rapidly
changing lexicon from the 11 languages spoken in this region2 (Ntshangase, 1995).
Mastery of Iscamtho and skillful innovative use of speech and gesture for narrative
performances, often involving exaggerated and imaginary stories, is crucial for gaining and
maintaining access and status among peers (Brookes, 2004). With little prospect of
furthering their education or finding employment, young men spend much of their time on
the township street corners, where they gather in groups for parts of the day. Dress, style of
walking, talking, and gesturing are key to male township identity and the negotiation of in-
and out-group status among the various street corner groups divided along sub-cultural
lines that form part of male township social networks (Brookes, 2001).
Examples of gestural use come from four conversations totaling approximately three
hours of video-recordings. The participants in these conversations are young male South
Sotho and Zulu speaking friends in their early twenties chatting in- and outside their
homes. The conversations were filmed by one of the participants who spent approximately
a year (during 1998 and early 1999) capturing naturally occurring examples of gestural use
in the research site. Interpretations by three male informants from the research site
informed the analysis of gestural data for this article. Each informant was asked separately
to comment on the performance, meaning, and communicative function of the gestures
used in each example. The author, together with an expert in African languages3 and a
professional translator,4 identified the information foci, provided a syntactic analysis, and
translated the examples.
2. Communicative functions of quotable gestures
For this analysis, I have selected three commonly occurring quotable gestures. They
refer to drinking (alcohol/beer), money, and streetwiseness. I use the framework
1
In this township, the grammatical bases for Iscamtho are Zulu and South Sotho.
2
The languages spoken in this region are Afrikaans, English, Southern Ndebele, North Sotho, South Sotho,
Swazi, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, and Zulu.
3
Professor Lionel Posthumus, African Languages, Rand Afrikaans University.
4
Kethiwe Marais, Afrophone, Johannesburg.
Kendon (1980, 2004) outlines for the description and analysis of gestures. When a person
gestures, they move their hand or hands to a particular location in space and then away
again. As the hand reaches the apex of this movement, the shape of the gesture becomes
defined and the hand may perform a movement pattern or pause at the apex before it
withdraws. The phase of movement performed at the apex is called the stroke. The
movement towards the apex is called the preparation. The phase after the stroke, in which
the hand moves away and returns to resting position or the movement after the stroke
before it prepares for a subsequent gesture, is known as the recovery. A complete gesture or
gesture phrase consists of three stages: preparation, stroke, and recovery (Kendon, 2004).
In each example, I mark the beginning of the gesture phrase above the spoken language
with a forward slash (/) and the end with a back slash (\) and put (a) line(s) over the
syllable(s) on which the movement(s) of the stroke occur(s). (When referring to an example
in the body of the text, the syllables on which the gesture stroke occurs are underlined.)
Gesture phrases may occur singly or follow one another. The point at which the hands leave
a position of rest until they return is defined as a gesture unit. A gesture unit may consist of
one or more gesture phrases. As all the examples involve gestures in conjunction with
speech, the information unit is the unit of analysis applied to spoken language. An
information unit comprises given and new information. New information typically
culminates in the information focus of the information unit, which is marked by tonic
prominence, although given information can be also be the information focus (Halliday,
1985). In the analysis that follows, I mark the beginning of an information unit on the same
line as the spoken language with a forward slash (/) and the end with a back slash (\) and
mark the information focus in bold.
2.1. The Drinking Gesture
The gesture for drinking involves the forefinger (or occasionally the knuckle of the
forefinger) of one hand held at about chest height, pointing diagonally downwards across
the body. The remaining fingers of this hand are loosely held in a fist position with the
thumb extended at almost right angles to the forefinger. The forefinger and thumb of the
other hand, which is held lower than the hand with extended forefinger, form a circular
shape. The remaining fingers of this hand hold the same curve as the forefinger and thumb.
The extended forefinger points to the circle of the other hand and moves up and down from
the wrist towards it (Fig. 1).
The number of movements up and down from the wrist or the increased amplitude of the
movement between the two hands indicates the amount of drinking or alcohol. The gesture
can also be performed with only the hand with extended forefinger. Users interpret the form
and movement of the Drinking Gesture as depicting the neck of the bottle represented by
the extended finger pouring alcohol into a glass portrayed by the circular form of the other
hand. The Drinking Gesture can be regarded as an emblem (Ekman and Friesen, 1969) or
quotable gesture (Kendon, 1992a), as it is interpretable independently of speech and is
invariably glossed in spoken language as meaning drinking (alcohol) or alcohol/beer.
Independently of speech, it can function as a component of a message in combination with
other quotable gestures or it may communicate a complete message on its own, the
meaning depending on context.
Fig. 1. The Drinking Gesture.
I begin with two examples in which the Drinking Gesture co-occurs with its spoken
lexical equivalent. In Example (1) (GB (Grammatical Base)Zulu) (con.3 (conversation
3)gest.103 (gesture 103)), Max is sitting in the lounge of his friends house chatting to his
friend, Mokone and Mokones brother. Max is jokingly telling Mokone that he should have
asked for some alcohol from Jerome, in return for having set Jerome up with a particular
woman.5,6
The Drink Gesture occurs twice (the first occurrence is discussed below). In the second
instance, it begins on ngiI and as Max says ipo plabooze, he performs the stroke
of the Drinking Gesture with two movements on po and la. (There is a third downward
movement of the stroke on uya that is also discussed later.)
5
The syntactic analysis indicates the linguistic origin of the lexicon where it differs from the base language.
6
In this example, it is not clear whether the speaker is using the Zulu Uyabonayou see or the South Sotho
Wa bonayou see. Although he is a Zulu speaker, Zulu speakers sometimes use Wa bonayou see when
talking to South Sotho speakers, as is possibly the case in this conversation (Lionel Posthumus, personal
communication, 27 September 2004).
In Example (2) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.4gest.176), Thapelo and four friends, Mokone,
Thabo, Aubrey, and Jerome, are chatting in Thapelos room. Thapelo is describing how
everyone contributed to buying beers when he and another friend went round visiting their
friends.
The gesture forms on bathey with the stroke consisting of two downward movements
of the forefinger towards the other hand on ma jwalabeers. In both examples, the
stroke of the Drinking Gesture coincides with its verbal equivalent and appears simply to
represent what is said.
However, there are cases where the stroke of the Drinking Gesture does not coincide with
its spoken lexical equivalent. In Example (3) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.2gest.23), Godfrey is
standing chatting to two friends, Mokone and Jerome, in the front yard of Mokones house.
Godfrey has been telling them about his stomach ulcer caused by drinking and informs them
of his intention to drink again once his ulcer is treated (see Example (6)). Jerome warns him
not to drink again as it will kill him, and Godfrey replies that he will only drink a little.
The Drinking Gesture occurs twice. In the first instance, it begins on HayiNo rising
slightly as he says, ha ke bo tjhupeI dont drink it a lot with the stroke consisting of a
single downward movement on haholoa lot. In the second instance, the performance
of the gesture phrase consisting of the Drinking Gesture followed by another improvisatory
gesture on o a bonayou see extends over the information unit. It rises on Ke ya bo
tjhupaI drink it with the stroke involving a downward movement beginning on pa and
continuing downwards reaching the lowest point with forefinger pointing to the ground on
njejust a little. In both cases, the performance of the Drinking Gesture gives visual
prominence to the new and contrastive elements, haholoa lot and njejust a little,
which contradict Jeromes warning. Here the Drinking Gesture not only represents
tjhupadrink, but also marks the information focus in each information unit. At the
same time, the execution of the gesture phrases coincides with the beginning and ending of
units of spoken information.
Returning to Examples (1) and (2), where the Drinking Gesture coincides with its verbal
equivalents ipo plabooze and ma jwalabeers, we notice that thegestures are also the
foci of both information units. In Example (1), the Drinking Gesture forms on ngiI and
rises on tholeget with two downward movements of the stroke on ipo plabooze. In
Example (2), ba re kenyetsa ma jwalathey say put in [money] for beers, the Drinking
Gesture forms on bathey with two downward movements of the extended finger
occurring on ma jwalabeers. Again the execution of the Drinking Gesture, while
coinciding with its spoken equivalents, also parallels the spoken information units and marks
the information foci.
The above functions of representing part of the content of an utterance, giving
prominence to the focus of the message, and marking the units of spoken information can
allow for different messages to be conveyed and two different information foci to be
highlighted simultaneously. In Example (4) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.2gest.120), Godfrey,
with his two friends, Mokone and Jerome, in front of Mokones house, is now talking about
quitting alcohol because of his ulcer, in favor of sex.
On ke tlohele jwalaI quit beer, he represents quit by moving both hands

downwards, with palms parallel to the stomach and fingers extended towards each other.
The gesture begins with the hands rising up on ke tloheleI quit and making a
downward movement on jwalabeer. As he executes the downward movement with
both hands on jwalabeer, the forefinger of the right hand takes on the form of the
Drinking Gesture while the other hand continues the gesture for quitting. Thus, the
Drinking Gesture combines with a gesticulation representing tlohelequit and the
spoken and gestural modes communicate the same content while emphasizing jwala
beer. Godfrey then repeats ke deela feela ka dithekeniI deal only with girls, and at the
same time he performs the Drinking Gesture making the downward movements of the
forefinger towards the other hand on dithekenigirls. Here the gestural mode does not
represent what is said. Instead it maintains the information focus of the previous clause
jwalabeer, while highlighting the information focus dithekenigirls of the next
clause. The information foci of the unit of spoken information are jwalabeer (in
gesture) and dithekenigirls (in speech) and the performance of the Drinking Gesture
maintains the prominence of both, emphasizing the two opposing choices.
The Drinking Gesture can also give prominence to a larger segment of discourse for
semantic effect. In Example (5) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.4gest.116), Thapelo and his four
friends, chatting in Thapelos room, are commenting that South Africans know the names
of American singers but Americans do not know South African musicians. Thapelo goes on
to talk about how he thinks Americans socialize based on what he has seen in music videos.
He describes them showing off their dreadlocks sitting on top of coupes while girls pass in
their Pajeros holding cellphones. Then they all party together after which he says:
The Drinking Gesture begins before he starts speaking and the stroke consists of three
downward movements towards the other hand occurring over the first information unit.
They occur on bathey, on the ke of nkentjadrink, and again on the second ba
they before the hand starts the next gesture for go. This has the semantic effect of
placing importance on this particular aspect of what they do above other things, that is,
drinking takes primacy in their lives.
The examples thus far demonstrate that the Drinking Gesture not only represents
various aspects of the spoken content, but also plays a role in structuring information within
a message and information units in relation to one another. However, the Drinking Gesture
also contributes to the message as an interactive event in expressing the type of speech act
or interactional move of the utterance (Kendon, 1995: 248).
In Example (6) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.2gest.21), Godfrey, chatting with his two friends,
Mokone and Jerome, in front of Mokones house, is saying that once his ulcer is treated he will
drink again. The utterance in Example (6) occurs just before Jerome warns him not to drink as
it will kill him and Godfrey says he will only drink a little (see Example (3)).
The Drinking Gesture occurs twice. The first ones preparation begins on keI with
a downward movement on bo tjhu pe veer veerwill drink it again. Godfrey then
repeats the gesture after he finishes speaking. The emphatic nature of the downward
movement combined with its repetition after he has finished speaking gives his statement
the illocutionary force of a strong statement of intent.
In Example (3), as Godfrey says:/Hayi, ha ke bo tjhupe haholo, akere\.No, I dont
drink it a lot, right, the direction of the Drinking Gesture is towards his interlocutor. He
visually puts forward his point to correct Jeromes assumption, thus giving additional force
to his utterance as a statement of fact. After completing the downward movement of the
Drinking Gesture on haholoa lot, Godfrey continues to maintain the form of the
gesture as he moves his hand back towards his right side with a slight up and down
movement of the extended forefinger on akereright. While akereright at the end
of the clause explicitly indicates that he requires a response, sustaining the hand shape and
repeating the movement of the Drinking Gesture also visually indicates Godfrey expects
Jerome to respond and acknowledge Godfreys correction of Jeromes assumption that he
will drink so much that he will kill himself.
A similar use of the Drinking Gesture occurs in Example (1). Max says: anginamali
yokhuthi atleastnyana\ /ngithole ipo pla, u[y]abona\.I dont have money so that at least
(a little) I [can] get booze, you see. The strokes of the Drinking Gesture occur on
ipo plabooze, but continue with a third movement of the extended forefinger on
uyabonayou see. Here Max demonstrates how his friend should have asked Jerome
for some beers. The tag uyabonayou see is a verbal appeal to the friend to understand
his financial predicament. The manner of the performance of the Drinking Gesture in
conjunction with uyabonayou see serves to intensify the illocutionary force of this
appeal while also functioning as a visual request for what that the speaker requires.
So far I have focused on examples in which the Drinking Gestures substantive function,
that is, its contribution to the content of an utterance, is to represent an aspect of what is said.
In the following examples, the Drinking Gesture functions to modify spoken content or add
information not present in the spoken mode. In the first three examples, the Drinking
Gesture provides information on the quantity of drinking. Returning to Example (6), we note
that Godfrey says: E [a] boda daie ding Mfowethu, ha o e treeta. Then /ke bo tjhu pe veer
veer \ / \ It dies that thing Brother, if you treat it. Then I will drink it again. Godfrey
performs the Drinking Gesture twice, once while he says: ke bo tjhu pe veer veerI will
drink it again and then after he finishes speaking. The repetition of the gesture expresses a
sense of continuousness to the action, communicating the messageI will drink it again
(and again). Similarly in Example (7) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.4gest.178), Jerome, one of
Thapelos four friends sitting in Thapelos room, describes what happens when you live in a
shack and cant find a job.
The Drinking Gesture occurs twice, first on kgasadrinking, and then after Jerome
finishes this word. This repetition again adds a sense of continuousness, communicating
the meaning You end up for sure so you drink (and drink). Example (8) (GBSouth
Sotho) (con.2gest.3) modifies the spoken message in a similar way, but is inflected
differently. In the conversation with Jerome, Mokone and Godfrey, outside Mokones
home, they are discussing who used to drink, and how much they used to drink at school.
Godfrey describes how he and his friends used to drink at school.
The hand with extended forefinger executes the downward movement of the Drinking
Gesture on daarthere. It reaches the other hand, which is moving up diagonally across
the body towards the extended forefinger on daarthere. The gesture is performed with
a movement of relatively large amplitude. This adds the meaning of a lot to the spoken
message. Thus, the speech and gesture together provide the message We were busy
drinking it (a lot) here there. At the same time, the up and downward movement of the
Drinking Gesture on bo tjhupa he daarwere busy drinking it here there gives
prominence to this part of the spoken message, thus marking the information focus
daarthere. Thus, the Drinking Gesture, while functioning substantively to modify
spoken content, continues to be an integral part of structuring information in the message.
The Drinking Gesture can also be inflected in other ways to communicate information
without which the spoken message would not make sense. In Example (3), after Jerome
warns Godfrey not to drink, otherwise he might kill himself and Godfrey responds with
/Hayi, ha ke bo tjhupe haholo, akere\ . /Ke ya bo tjhupa nje \ , o a bonaNo, I dont drink
it a lot, right. I drink it just a little, you see, Godfrey then continues with the following
(Example (9); GBSouth Sotho):
The Drinking Gesture occurs twice. The first one rises on Hanyane, ke bo tjhupaA
little, I drink it with the downward movement across his body on nyanaa little
continuing downwards reaching its lowest point on zerofinished, thus representing
what is said, indicating the focus of the message, and visually expressing in conjunction
with zerofinished, the illocutionary force of the message as a statement of fact about
which there can be no doubt. However, with the second occurrence, Godfrey pulls his hand
with extended forefinger back up across the body and out to the side as far back as his arm
can go in a backward direction, as he says Ke bo tjhupeI drink it with the downward
movement from the wrist on pe. In this case, the Drinking Gesture combines with a gesture
that commonly accompanies spoken words that refer to the past such as yesterday, last
week, or last year. The form of the Drinking Gesture with extended forefinger follows the
direction and movement of this gesture adding the meaning (like before/in the past). The
complete message is I drink it (like before).
Not only can the Drinking Gesture add content equivalent to a word or phrase in speech,
but it can also provide a gestural equivalent to a spoken clause to communicate a complete
message in conjunction with speech. Thus, in Example (8), where Godfrey describes how
much they used to drink at school, he continues to say that it was at social events and shows
held at school where they used to drink. After saying Ne re bo tjhupa, /ne re bo tjhupa he
daar\ .We were busy drinking it, we were busy drinking it here, there, he continues
directly with the following (Example (10); GBSouth Sotho):
The Drinking Gesture occurs on Ai di-eventAi the events with the downward movement
of extended forefinger reaching the other hand on event. Again the movement is of
relatively large amplitude. This communicates the message: The events, (we drank a lot at
the events) or The events, (there was a lot of liquor there) while also serving to highlight
where there was drinking, at di-eventthe events. Simultaneously di-eventthe
events is foregrounded as the theme (Halliday, 1985), that is, what the message is about.
While completing the spoken message, the Drinking Gesture also serves to visually
emphasize that di-eventthe events is the central concern of both gestural and spoken
messages. Thus, the spoken and gestural modes communicate two different messages while
The events, (we drank a lot at the events) The events, they are not organized [they are
organized], they are not organized [they are organized], here there, making use of the same
theme.
Finally, there are instances in which the Drinking Gesture appears to add substantive
information to the spoken mode, but is also anticipating part of the subsequent spoken
message for rhetorical effect. Returning to Example (1), we note that Max says: Ngabe
atleastnyana . . . ngabe atleastnyana wamuthipa wathi, /Eyi Jerome, anginamali yokuthi
atleastnyana \ / ngithole ipo pla, u[y]a bona\ .If you had at least (a little) . . . if you had
at least (a little) hinted to him and said, Hey Jerome, I dont have money so that at least (a
little) I [can] get booze, you see. As he says atleastnyanaat least (a little) he
gesturally represents the concept of a little and enacts the Drinking Gesture
simultaneously. The single movement of the stroke of the Drinking Gesture is minimal,
indicating a little and the hand with extended forefinger of the Drinking Gesture moves
from the wrist slightly outwards away from the body and back towards the other hand as if
to present a small request to his imagined interlocutor, Jerome, before it is actually spoken.
The performance of the Drinking Gesture, on atleastnyanaat least (a little),
communicates the message at least a little (alcohol), anticipating the focus of the
message ipo plabooze which is subsequently spoken. Although the performance of
the information focus gesturally before it occurs in speech is representing how this request
could have been made politely, it also anticipates the focal point of Maxs punch line in the
current interaction. Similarly, in Example (11) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.4gest.81), Jerome
is contributing to an imaginary discussion about he and his friends going off in a car playing
music, hanging out/chilling, and drinking.
On njemerely, the stroke of the Drinking Gesture occurs, communicating

merely flowered [chilled] (with beers/drinking), anticipating and highlighting the
spoken ra kgasaand drank that co-occurs with a second performance of the
Drinking Gesture, after which the Drinking Gesture occurs again to express drinking and
drinking.
The analysis of the second gesture now follows to see whether it functions in similar ways.
2.2. The Money Gesture
With this gesture, the tip of the thumb touches the index finger approximately one and a
half centimeters below the tip. The thumb and forefinger are either rubbed together in a
circular motion or held together. The palm faces upward with the other fingers bent inwards
but also moves slightly up and down when forefinger and thumb are rubbed together
(Fig. 2).
Increasing the number of movements, enlarging the circular motion of the index
finger and thumb, and/or holding the gesture higher up and further away from the body
indicate larger amounts of money. The gesture can be used independently of speech and
is widely recognized as referring to money. This gesture frequently combines with
gesticulations that depict handing over money or taking out money. In these cases, the
fingers do not rub together, instead the stroke of the gesture is the moment at which the
hand reaches the furthest point away from the gesturer and pauses briefly before it is
withdrawn.
Fig. 2. The Money Gesture.
As with the Drink Gesture, the Money Gesture coincides with its spoken equivalent
when it is the information focus in a message. In Example (1), when Max is telling his
friend that he should have asked for beer from Jerome in return for having set him up with a
particular woman he then quotes what he might have said (Example (12); GBZulu):
The gesture begins on AwungishayePlease hit me with the stroke with a single
movement of thumb and forefinger occurring on sentenyanasome cents. Example
(13) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.4gest.57) is similar. The five friends in Thapelos room are
now discussing how they would blackmail a man who is cheating on his wife. Aubrey
says7:
The Money Gesture rises after Eyayes, moving out and up to about face height where
a single movement of index finger and thumb occurs on tjheletemoney before the
hand returns to resting position.
7
The suffix ng should be suffixed to the verb stem na. The form should thus be: o nang le tjhelete.
There are also examples in which the Money Gesture marks an information focus
that is not its spoken equivalent. In Example (14) (GBZulu) (con.3gest.104), Max is
talking about how much money he spent on refreshments for a woman who was visiting his
home.
The Money Gesture occurs three times on nono, nanguhere she is, with the left
hand, and on thata with the right hand. (The use of two different hands is discussed
below.) The stroke of the gesture (with no movement of forefinger and thumb) on no
no emphasizes its function, which is to signal that he has made a decision contrary to what
he could have done, that is, not spend money on her. He then uses the Money Gesture to
emphasize the reason, nanguhere she is. In this context it would be a breach of
etiquette not to provide a person who has come to visit with refreshments. The Money
Gesture then emphasizes thata which means to let go or pass the money. The Money
Gesture visually maintains the theme while emphasizing the information focus in each
information unit.
There are also instances in which the Money Gesture contributes to the message as an
interactive event. The following example shows that the gesture can visually indicate a
question is being asked and a certain response is required. In Example (15) (GBSouth
Sotho) (con.2gest.105), Mokone has informed Godfrey that they are going to make up
soccer teams and play for money. Godfrey is seeking clarity about how much money each
team is going to contribute.
On Ooh, re le team e oneOoh, we are one team, an improvisatory gesture with hand
moved from the wrist in a circle to indicate the whole team on team e oneone
team, moves into the Money Gesture that begins on rewe with the stroke
involving a movement of the hand that illustrates giving money on tjhokotwenty
rand. After he finishes speaking, Godfrey sustains the form of the Money Gesture
at the location where the stroke occurred, visually indicating that he requires
confirmation. Once confirmation is given by his interlocutor, Godfrey withdraws the
gesture. Godfrey then asks another question Re ya geima daar?We play there? and
Mokone answers in the affirmative. Immediately Godfrey continues (Example (16);
GBSouth Sotho):
The stroke of the Money Gesture performed with the left and right hands is
performed once towards the left side after dlalaplay. The left hand returns to
resting position over the rest of the information unit while the right hand repeats the
Money Gesture rotating the hand in the direction of the right side on team. (The use of
two different hands is explained below.) After Godfrey has finished speaking, the
right hand again sustains the shape of the Money Gesture at the location where the stroke
occurs, again visually signaling that he requires confirmation. The gesture continues to
be held throughout Jeromes reply Ke diknockout, ha o tswile, o tswile, o lahlile
tjeleteIts knockouts, if you are out, you are out, you lose the money, indicating
that Godfrey still does not completely understand how the competition will work.
While Godfrey continues to hold the Money Gesture with his right hand,
Mokone explains further: The winner takes one thirty, Mfowethu, one thirtyThe
winner takes one thirty, Brother, one thirty. Godfrey then repeats the amount Mokone
has said, Hundred and thirty while still holding the gesture thus asking again for
confirmation. Mokone confirms: One thirty, klipha thirty, joOne thirty, hundred
[and] thirty, jo, and as he does so Godfrey withdraws the Money Gesture held with the
right hand.
The performance of the Money Gesture can also visually depict an offer. In Example
(17) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.4gest.213), Jerome is talking about how the police are
susceptible to bribes because they do not get paid well. He describes how people can bribe
the police to give them case files.
As Jerome says:/Ke ye five thousand \Here it is five thousand, he moves his hand in
the form of the Money Gesture up, towards the front, and at a distance away from his body
as if to offer the money to someone in front of him.
Substantively, the Money Gesture can represent its spoken equivalent. However, it
may also modify or add to spoken content. In the following examples, the Money
Gesture expresses quantity and adds information equivalent to a word, phrase or clause
in speech.
As there are other quotable gestures that can refer to large amounts of money
in this repertoire, there are fewer examples in which this gesture expresses quantity.
In Example (13), where Aubrey is saying who they should blackmail, Eya, /ho batleha,
vele, o na leng tjhelete\.Yes, what is needed, of course, is the one who has money,
the Money Gesture moves out and up to about face height, where the stroke com-
prising the movement of index finger and thumb occurs on tjheletemoney.
The prominent position of the gesture at face height communicates that it is a lot of
money.
A related meaning is achieved in Example (14) where Max is complaining about the
amount of money he spent on the woman visitor. Ngaspenda, Sbali, maybe thirty rand.
Hha, ngibusy mane /ngithi no,\ /ngoba nangu, o usahleli, uyabona\. /Ngithi tha mbonayi\.
Ngihambe, ngiyobuya iyiwayinyana laphayana, amakhekhe, uyabona.I spent,
Brother(-in-law), maybe thirty rand. Oh, I am busy I merely said no, because here she
is, still sitting around, you see, I said ta [heres] money. I [then] went, I go back [for] a little
while there, cakes, you see. The gesture occurs three times. The first and second instances
are performed with the left hand. The third is performed with the right hand to distinguish it
as a separate action. In the third instance, Max represents the action of giving money while
holding the form of the Money Gesture simultaneously with its spoken meaning /tha
mbonayi\ta [heres] money. However, in the first two instances, the action of hand
holding the Money Gesture adds taking out money, and its repetition expresses the
continuousness of the action and the idea that it amounted to a lot of money. In both cases,
the Money Gesture adds information not present in the spoken mode that results in the
following meaning: Oh, I am busy I merely said no (I must take out money) (and keep
taking out money) because here she is still sitting around, you see. In the second instance,
two different messages are communicated simultaneously: the fact that he is continually
having to take out money expressed through gesture and the reason why he is doing so that
is expressed in speech. At the same time, he uses the Money Gesture to mark aspects of the
spoken message as described above.
There are further examples in which the Money Gesture adds a word, phrase, or
clause without which the spoken message would not make sense. In Example (16),
Godfrey asks: Re dlala __ le team e nngwe?We play the other team? This question
appears redundant as naturally one would play another team in a soccer tournament.
However, Godfrey performs the Money Gesture twice, after dlalaplay with the left
and right hands, and on team with the right hand. The gesture using both left and right hand
refers to Godfreys team and their twenty rand, and the right hand to the other team and their
money in order to communicate, We play (with our money/twenty rand) the other team
(with their twenty rand)? Godfrey is asking for clarity about how the teams will distribute
the money if each team comes with twenty rand. Again, as described previously, holding the
gesture signals a question, and his interlocutors then clarify his query.
In another example, Example (18) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.4gest.207), Jerome, one of
Thapelos four friends sitting in Thapelos room, describes how a criminal will drive
around in a stolen car and because the car is hot he will carry around ten thousand rand
and hand out bribes to the police.
The first Money Gesture, held up and out to the side, represents taking out money, o ntsa o
hundred randhe takes out a hundred rand. Jerome then repeats the Money Gesture
without speech, but its direction is upwards and to the front of the speaker, adding in
gestural mode and give the money.
There are also examples in which this gesture anticipates its spoken equivalent. In
Example (19) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.4gest.186), Thapelo and his four friends are talking
about poor people who, if they were given ten million rands, would still build a mansion
among the shacks because the mentality of poverty remains in their heads. Jerome
describes what the person with ten million rand would do.
The left hand holds the gesture for driving/car from E ntseHe is until difive tigerfive
ten rand notes. while the right hand does the gesture for giving money twice to the right side
of the speaker, as if handing money out of a car window. The stroke of the first one occurs on
stratengon the street and the second one on tigerten rand notes, returning to rest
after he has finished speaking. The repetition of the gesture completed after he has finished
speaking also reflects the continuousness of the action of giving out money that is also
verbally expressed. The Money Gesture on stratengon the street adds giving out
money, highlighting on the street (giving out money). The gestural part is subsequently
spoken and again given prominence by the re-occurrence of the Money Gesture in
conjunction with it.
2.3. The Clever Gesture
The Clever Gesture involves one hand with first and fourth fingers extended. The second
and third fingers remain bent towards the palm, with the thumb resting against them but still
extended. (The shape of this gesture is very similar to the Corna Gesture, a typical Italian
and Spanish gesture with a very long tradition (see for example De Jorio, 1832).) In South
African townships, the hand usually points with the first and fourth fingers towards the
gesturers eyes, but it can also point away from the gesturer either towards the front or the
side. The stroke involves sideways movements back and forth from the elbow, the hand
moving at a slight angle downwards across the face (Fig. 3).
Although users commonly gloss this gesture as meaning clever in the sense
of streetwise and city slick, when used with language, it has a broader range of
semantic uses related to the core semantic concept of seeing. On its own, the Clever
Gesture can communicate a range of messages depending on context and manner of
performance, involving changes in hand direction and eyes widening. It can mean Hes
streetwise, I want to see you, Look, Be alert, Watch out, You are being watched,
or I see you as a greeting (Brookes, 2001). Since this gesture is widely recognized and
can function as a substitute for speech, it can be regarded as an emblem or quotable
gesture.
Fig. 3. The Clever Gesture.
There are many examples of the Clever Gesture in these conversations. Among these,
there are instances where the performance of the Clever Gesture coincides with an
associated spoken meaning in the same way as the Drinking and Money Gestures. In
Example (20) (GBZulu) (con.3gest.22),8 where Max is sitting in the lounge of Mokones
house and chatting to Mokone and his brother Thabo, Max is talking about a television
personality with whom he attended a course on becoming a television continuity
announcer.
8
An analysis of this example in terms of its syntagmatic and paradigmatic meanings is given in Brookes (2001).
The gesture begins at waqalahe started with left arm and hand at chin height. The
formation of the Clever Gesture begins on ukungathias if moving upwards as he
says this, with the stroke involving two diagonal downward movements across the eyes
on the hla and ni of hlakani phaclever. The Clever Gesture is followed by the
gesture for stupid, in which a flat hand with palm towards the speaker is drawn across
the face, on /hayi, bekhalele, nayeno, he was sleeping [dull], he too. Similar
examples, in which the gesture co-occurs with a related spoken meaning, are given
below.
In Example (21) (GBZulu) (con.3gest.84), in the same conversation as Example (20)
with Mokone and Thabo, Max is telling a story about his brother who was sitting and
chatting with his friends at their home. When his brother saw a certain woman whom he did
not want to see, coming towards the house, his brother decided to run away. Max quotes
what his brother said to him as he left:
The Clever Gesture forms and rises on wenayou, at which point both speech and
gesture pause momentarily before the stroke of the gesture involving a movement from in
front of the right shoulder downwards half way across the chest occurs in a forceful and
quick manner on gadawatch.
In Example (22) (GBZulu) (con.3gest.73), Max in the lounge of Mokones home, is
talking about a medical doctor in the area who is rumored to be defrauding medical
insurance schemes.
The Clever Gesture begins on YiHes with two sideways movements on ske
and lm. The performance of the gesture over a short period with stroke movements
of minimal amplitude and eyes opened wide indicates that his cleverness is bad, in this
case, it is the cleverness of a criminal. The form of the gesture is held until the end of the
information unit in a sideways position at just below chin height, returning to rest on
SbaliBrother[-in-law]. In all three examples, the performance of the gesture unit
coincides with a unit of spoken information and the gesture stroke marks the focus in
each unit.
Again, in the same way as the Drinking and Money Gestures, the Clever
Gesture marks an information focus that is not a related spoken meaning. In Example
(23) (GBZulu) (con.3gest.127), Max talks about a woman who believes she is
streetwise. Before this utterance, Max has been comparing this woman with another
woman, both of whom he thinks are not streetwise (see Example (26)). He then
comments that the one woman doesnt understand what it means to be clever (see
Example (24)) and then says that the other one believes that she is smart/streetwise and
tries to be so.
The Clever Gesture rises on Bekathi,She tried, and then pauses momentarily before
he says: bekazenzashe made. The stroke occurs on zenzamade with two
sideways movements on zen and za. The gesture then returns to resting position.
Thus, zenzamade is prominent within the message, and not uzibhekileshe
was watching herself [is smart]. In the context of the previous clause, uzibhekileshe
was watching herself [is smart] is given information. Since her smartness is the
main subject of the discourse, but not the focus of the information unit, Max maintains
this visually by using the Clever Gesture to emphasize the focus of the message
bekazenzashe made. Again this suggests that quotable gestures occur when
their spoken equivalent is either the focus of the message or the main subject of
conversation.
The same pattern occurs above the level of the information unit. In Example (24) (GB
Zulu) (con.3gest.126), Max is comparing the two women who believe themselves to be
streetwise.
Both hands are held in front of the stomach, left hand in front of right but slightly lower,
with palms facing the ground and the fingers of each hand held together extended towards
the front. The positioning of the hands signals that Max is making a comparison. The right
hand indicates the status of each person, while the left hand functions as a gestural deictic
pointing to first one person and then the other. The right hand rises towards the eyes on
ushe with two minimal downward movements of the stroke on slem-clever. (Again,
the small movements of the gesture stroke indicate that her cleverness is negative, in this
case, she is cunning and/or deceitful.) The left hand maintains its position referring to the
person he is describing. The right hand then holds the Clever Gesture throughout the next
information unit while the left hand refers deictically to the second person with forward
movements on ba and ipoint. Both come to rest at the end of the second slemclever.
Here is a case of consecutive sentences that both use the word clever, but only in one
instance is the Clever Gesture used to mark its spoken equivalent. The difference between
the two is that in the first sentence, clever is new information and the focus of the
message, while in the second sentence, it is given information and therefore no longer the
information focus. The right hands maintenance of the form of the Clever Gesture, at
shoulder height over the second information unit, functions to visually maintain the topic
while the left hand marks the new information focus on ba and ipoint of akabambi ipoint
yokuba slemdoesnt get the point of being clever.
Thus, far the Drinking, Money, and Clever Gestures function structurally to give
prominence to the information focus within a unit of information, to visually maintain the
central concern of the message and to visually demarcate a unit of spoken information.
However, there are examples in which the Clever Gesture gives prominence to larger
segments of discourse, indicating its status in relation to other units. In Example (25) (GB
English) (con.4gest.146), Jerome sitting with Thapelo, Mokone, Thabo and Aubrey in
Thapelos room, is making a joke about how Bill Clinton will offer Nelson Mandela two
Versace shirts in exchange for the prized South African province of Gauteng and how
Mandela will respond.
The Clever Gesture rises on be- in the direction of the speakers eyes and moves twice
back and forth on cause and hes. The gesture finishes and the hand returns to its
resting position before Jerome says slemclever. (The reason for this withdrawal
before its spoken equivalent is discussed below.) The stroke of the Clever Gesture occurs
over a dependent clause marking it as prominent, highlighting the reason, because hes
clever.
In another example, Example (26) (GBZulu) (con.3gest.123), Max is commenting
that the two women who think they are streetwise are not. (Mokones interruption is also
shown.)
The structure of Just manje, uyabona, __ ba lahle manje itimingRight now, you see,
they have thrown away the [their] alertness has two parts. The first part Just manje,
uyabonaRight now you see signals Im going to tell you what is wrong with them or
This is what my message is about, signaling that the crux of the message Ba lahle manje
itimingThey have thrown away the [their] alertness is coming. There are three
movements of the stroke of the clever gesture over the second clause. The preparation and
first movement of the stroke occur before he says Ba lahle manje itiming as his friend
interrupts with Ba ya fana, ndabaThey are the same, the matter . . ., after which Max
says Ba lahle manje itimingThey have thrown away the [their] alertness. The
downward movements of the stroke occur once during the interruption and then on la of
lahlehave thrown away and ti of itimingalertness. The Clever Gesture functions
to mark an entire clause as prominent and the semantic effect emphasizes that their lack of
smartness is the problem.
A similar case occurs in Example (27) (GBZulu) (con.3gest.64). Max is talking
about the same medical doctor who was defrauding medical insurance schemes and also
got charged with drug dealing. Max says that the doctor managed to have the charges
dropped and somehow get sufficient money to return to the township and build himself a
clinic.
The Clever Gesture occurs twice. In the first instance, it anticipates its spoken equivalent
that is the focus of the message (see further discussion below). It starts on SbaliBrother
[-in-law], the right hand rising with a downward movement on bu and a slight movement
on ya, continuing downwards on man jenow stopping at about midriff. Man je
now, which is also emphasized by the downward movement of the gesture, functions as a
continuative signaling that this is what must be attended to, that is, important information is
coming. Then the hand rises again to begin the second Clever Gesture before he says
uyahe, with a downward movement on uyahe and hla coming to rest before he
says uyabonayou see. The stroke of the Clever Gesture emphasizes uya-
hlakaniphaHe is getting clever. Again the semantic effect is to foreground his getting
smart above all other things.
In cases where the Clever Gesture functions to give prominence to an entire
unit of information, it can simultaneously structure information within in the unit itself
in order to continue to mark the information focus. Here is an example in which the
Clever Gesture combines with other gestures to structure information simultaneously at
these two levels. In Example (28) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.4gest.68), Jerome, in
Thapelos room, is continuing the conversation (see Example (13)) on how one
blackmails a person who is having an affair. He suggests that the best way would be to
send the man a photo of the person with whom he is having an affair along with a
note on the back of the photograph demanding money and a telephone number of a
public phone where the man must call. In order that this person should not find out who
is blackmailing him, you ask someone in the street to answer the telephone for you,
only to find out that the man you are blackmailing has had you under surveillance all
along.
The Clever Gesture rises just before Be with downward movements on ele and ba. It then
changes on trei into a point curving downwards towards Jeromes interlocutors reaching its
lowest point on treisesitsespying. The Clever Gesture again highlights the entire
sentence as the climax of the story, but does not coincide with its related spoken meaning,
treisesitsespying. Instead this word receives further prominence by a point that refers
to oyou, but does not coincide with it. Here Jerome gives prominence to both the
entire information unit and the most important information within it, namely spying and
you simultaneously.
Example (25) is another example in which the Clever Gesture structures infor-
mation at two levels. Jerome says: Ja. Then, Mandela, /because hes\ slem,
he say,You, Bill Clinton, you said my friend Fidel Castro there is not good. La man . . .
Eintlik go dip into a pool.Yes. Then Mandela, because hes clever, he says, You,
Bill Clinton, you said my friend Fidel Castro there is not good. Here man . . .. Actually
go dip into a pool [go jump in the lake]. Similarly, the Clever Gesture already
marks the dependent clause as prominent, but at the same time its spoken equivalent
needs to be made prominent in relation to the rest of the information unit. Since the
Clever Gesture is already highlighting the clause as a whole, he achieves this extra
prominence by a complete and deliberate withdrawal of the gesture before its spoken
equivalent.
As with the Drinking and Money Gestures, the Clever Gesture can contribute to a
message as an interactive event expressing, in combination with other aspects of the
communicative situation, the rhetorical function or interactional move of the utterance
(Kendon, 1995). With the Clever Gesture, there are examples in which it contributes to
expressing a warning, an assertion, an entreaty, and a threat.
In Example (29) (GBSouth Sotho) (con.1gest.179), Thabo, Jerome and Mokone are
standing in the kitchen of Mokones home late at night chatting. Mokone lies and tells
Jerome that a certain woman in the neighborhood likes him. Thabo tells Jerome that
Mokone is stringing him along.
The Clever Gesture rises just before he begins speaking. The stroke occurs over the entire
sentence with four sideways movements diagonally downward across Thabos face, the last
downward movement occurring after he finishes speaking before continuing downwards to
resting position. The performance of the gestural stroke over the entire information unit
combined with its definite movements and the last movement of the stroke occurring after
the spoken message indicates that the speaker is certain of this fact and is making a definite
statement or assertion. Simultaneously with the Clever Gesture, the opening of the eyes
communicates the warning, Be aware.
In Example (21), where Maxs brother decides to disappear because a certain woman is
coming, Max quotes his brother: Ithi le yasemzini, Eyi, Sbali, wena awung . . . awung . . .
awungidlalele daar,uyabona. /Wena . . . gada labantu laba\He says, this one of our
house, Hey Brother[-in-law], you do me . . . do me . . . do me a favor there, you see. You
watch [look after] these people, these [his visitors]. The Clever Gesture forms and rises
on wenayou, at which point both speech and gesture pause momentarily before the
stroke of the gesture involving a movement from in front of the right shoulder downwards
half way across the chest in a forceful and quick manner occurs on gadawatch. The
manner of performance conveys a request or command. This is preceded by a gesture in
which the side of one hand with fingers extended, but together, is hit at right angles across
the upward facing palm of the other twice on the dla and le of wena awung . . .
awung . . . awungidlalele daaryou do me . . . do me . . . do me a favor there. This gesture
is pragmatic in that has no substantive function in contributing to the content of the
message. It can accompany a statement or command and appears to give added emphasis or
force to what is said, indicating a statement of fact or intensifying or giving added force to a
command. In this case, combined with the spoken words awungidlaleledo me a favor,
it has the effect of a strong request that provides the context for the interpretation of the
performance of the Clever Gesture on gadawatch out as an entreaty.
The performance of the Clever Gesture can also convey a threat. In Example (30) (GB
South Sotho, Zulu) (con.4gest.110), Thapelo and Jerome, in Thapelos room, are
telling a story about a confrontation they had with a taxi driver. Thapelo addressed him as
driver to which he took exception. Seeing both Jerome and Thapelo as streetwise
township men, the taxi driver who was from the rural areas then said to them he was also
streetwise. Jerome repeats what the taxi driver said.
The gesture unit consists of three gestures. It starts with a point rising on namime
touching his chest on wu and going straight on into the Clever Gesture across the eyes
once from left to right and then up with the hand flicked away on nami. The Clever
Gesture performed once across the face conveys antagonism. This execution of the Clever
Gesture, preceded by an emphatic point towards the chest and then followed by a flick of
the hand to signal dismissal along with both facial and tonal aggression, conveys a threat.
Similarly to the Drinking Gesture, the Clever Gesture in conjunction with speech, not
only signals how the interaction should proceed, that is, what response is required, but also
how the discourse is unfolding, that is, what the listener should pay attention to. As we saw
in Example (27), the Clever Gesture marks the continuative man jenow, signaling that
important information is coming. Max says: Manje, nje ngoba kubuya uWinnie kuvuka
nale saak, /Sbali uyabu-ya man je\ , / uya-hlakanipha\ , uyabona.Now, merely as
Winnie [Mandela] is returning this case also re-opens, Brother[-in-law] he comes back
now, he is getting clever, you see. The first Clever Gesture starts on SbaliBrother [-in-
law], the right hand rising with a downward movement on bu and a slight movement on
ya, continuing downwards on man jenow stopping at about midriff. Man jenow,
emphasized by the downward movement of the gesture, functions as a continuative,
signaling to the participants that they should pay attention to what follows. A similar case
occurs in Example (26) where Max is comparing the two women who think they are
streetwise. Phela, bayafana nabo. Bayafana Sbali. /Just manje, uyabona\, /M: Bayafana
ndaba . . . balahle manje i-timing\.Actually, they too are the same. They are the same,
Brother[-in-law]. Right now, you see, M: They are the same, the matter . . . They have
thrown away the [their] alertness. The Clever Gesture occurs three times. In the second
instance, the Clever Gesture illustrates and marks uyabonayou see asking the
participants for a response as to whether they follow or agree with what he is saying.
However, its position directed towards the side also suggests that additional information is
about to be presented and this is what the listener should pay attention to.
There are also two cases in which the shape of the Clever Gesture is held beyond a
spoken unit of information without adding any illocutionary value or maintaining the
prominence of the information focus. In both cases the extended fingers turn towards the
interlocutor, pause briefly and then move into the next gesture. In the first case, it occurs on
its own without speech. After Max describes the two women in Example (26), /Just
manje, uyabona,\ / balahle manje i-timing\Right now, you see, they have thrown away
the [their] alertness, the hand, holding the Clever Gesture, turns pointing towards his
interlocutors, pauses briefly and then as he continues with Lo munye, lo munye, it moves
into a new gesture. The Clever Gesture functions as a continuative, indicating that there is
more on the topic and the speaker is going to continue. In the second case, Example (20),
after Max finishes the Clever Gesture on uyahlakani phahe becomes clever, he
continues saying ke and then otherwise. On ke, the hand holding the Clever Gesture turns
towards his interlocutor and then moves slightly forward on otherwise before it moves into
the gesture for stupid that accompanies bekalelehe was sleeping. Here the Clever
Gesture along with ke and otherwise signal to the listener that additional information is
coming.
With the Drinking Gesture, one of the main substantive functions is to express quantity
or degree. The Clever Gesture functions in a similar way. In Example (31) (GBSouth
Sotho) (con.1gest.189), Jerome asks Mokone to give him information about the woman
Mokone says likes Jerome. Mokone, in order not to give away that he is lying about the
woman liking Jerome, says he wont give him the phone numbers and address because
Jerome will blunder by phoning her or going to her home immediately. Thabo compliments
Mokone on his witty remark and his ability to fool Jerome.
The Clever Gesture rises moving outwards on Maarabut, pointing towards Mokone
on eothat, and then turning towards the gesturers eyes followed by sideways
movements back and forth four times on ke boslem boo _smart that. The head, eyes,
and hand all contribute to indicating how very smart is Mokones comment. The hand
moves back and forth with more movements of large amplitude, the head extends towards
Mokone and the eyes open wide. Another example occurs in Example (25) where Jerome
says: Ja. Then, Mandela, /because hes\ slem, he say, You, Bill Clinton, you said my
friend Fidel Castro there is not good. La man . . . Eintlik go dip into a pool.Yes. Then
Mandela, because hes clever, he say, You, Bill Clinton, you said my friend Fidel Castro
there is not good. Here man . . .. Actually go dip into a pool [go jump in the lake]. The
Clever Gesture occurs over because hes with relatively large and fast movements from
the wrist, expressing the degree of his cleverness, that is, very very clever.
Finally there are several examples in which the Clever Gesture also functions to
anticipate its spoken equivalent for rhetorical effect. In Example (27), Max says: Manje,
nje ngoba kubuya uWinnie kuvuka nale saak, /Sbali uyabu-ya, man je\, / uya-hlakanipha\,
uyabona.Now, merely as Winnie [Mandela] is returning this case also re-opens,
Brother[-in-law] he comes back, he is getting clever, you see. The stroke of the Clever
Gesture occurs on bu-yareturning communicating the man comes back (clever).
The Clever Gesture follows with the stroke over uya-hlakaniphahe is getting clever.
The effect of the anticipation is to draw attention to and emphasize in what kind of state
he returned. When Jerome is talking about Mandela in Example (25), Ja. Then, Mandela,
/because hes\ slem, he say, You, Bill Clinton, you said my friend Fidel Castro there is not
good. La man . . . Eintlik go dip into a pool.Yes. Then Mandela, because hes clever, he
say, You, Bill Clinton, you said my friend Fidel Castro there is not good. Here man . . ..
Actually go dip into a pool [go jump in the lake], the Clever Gesture anticipates slem
clever, but does not occur on this word. This marked form of anticipation gives slem
clever double emphasis and the result is both to express and give prominence to his great
cleverness.
2.4. Summary
In these examples, I have shown that the Drinking, Money, and Clever Gestures
commonly fulfill substantive, structural, and interactive functions simultaneously in a
single utterance. Substantively, these gestures represent their spoken lexical equivalents.
The gesture stroke co-occurs with its spoken equivalent when the spoken meaning is the
information focus of the message (Examples (1), (2), (12), (13), (20), (21), and (22)), or the
gesture phrase can co-occur with an information unit when its meaning is the central
concern of the message but not the information focus (Examples (3), (4), (14), (23), and
(24)). In the latter case, the gesture may be held over the information unit while another
gesture marks the information focus (Examples (24)), or the stroke of the gesture
representing the central concern of the message may still mark the information focus even
if the spoken meaning of the information focus is different from what the gesture represents
(Examples (3), (4), (10), (14), and (23)). Consequently, a gesture can, in some cases,
visually represent the content of the information focus of a previous information unit or the
central concern of the discourse in the next information unit to depict and link the semantic
content of two consecutive utterances simultaneously through visual and spoken modes
(Example (3), (4), (23), and (24)). The strokes of gestures that are the semantic equivalent
of the spoken information focus can also occur before their spoken equivalent to anticipate
the information focus for rhetorical and often humorous effect (Examples (1) and (25)). In
some cases, the gesture may anticipate the content of a subsequent information unit
marking the information focus of a previous information unit (Example (19) and (27)).
While gestures represent their spoken equivalents, they can also modify spoken content.
Through repetition, gestures convey a sense of continuous action not expressed in speech
(Examples (6), (7), and (14)). By increasing the amplitude of the stroke, increasing the
number of movements in the stroke or placing the gesture further away from and higher in
relation to the body and therefore in a more prominent position, gestures can also intensify
quantity or degree (Examples (8), (13), (14), (25), and (31)). Gestures can also add
substantive information equivalent to a lexical, phrasal or clausal equivalent to create a
complete message in conjunction with speech (Examples (9), (10), (14), (16), (18), and
(26)) or to communicate two different messages simultaneously (Examples (10) and (14)).
In some cases, two different gestures combine to mirror a complete spoken message
(Examples (4), (18), and (19)) or to depict part of spoken content and add a constituent
(either word or phrase) not present in speech that completes the message (Examples (9),
(14), and (16)). One or both hands can combine two gestural forms (Examples (4) and (9))
to mirror a complete spoken message, or both hands can perform the same gesture but
represent two different referents while performing the gesture (Examples (14) and (16)). In
some cases, one hand may hold the gesture that represents the central concern of the
message while the other hand points to two different referents and simultaneously marks
the information foci (Example (24)).
This analysis also shows that quotable gestures play an integral role in structuring
messages. Most commonly, the stroke of the gesture gives prominence to the information
focus of a message (Examples (1), (2), (12), (13), (20), (21), (22), and (23)) while the
gesture phrase from preparation to recovery visually demarcates a unit of spoken
information. Gestures can also maintain the prominence of more than one information
focus simultaneously over consecutive information units (Examples (3), (4), (14), and
(24)). The stroke of a gesture may also occur several times over a larger segment of
discourse, giving it specific prominence in relation to other segments (Examples (5), (25),
(26), (27), and (28)). In some of these cases, another gesture may mark the information
focus within the information unit segment (Example (28)), or the gesture withdraws before
the information focus to give it prominence in relation to the rest of the information unit
marked by the gesture (Example (25)). Gestures can also mark the theme at the beginning
of an utterance to give it prominence as the central concern and information focus of the
message (Example (10)).
Interactively quotable gestures also indicate the type of speech act contributing to the
illocutionary force of an utterance combined with tone and facial expression. A gesture can
(1) express intent (modality) through emphatic movement and repetition (Examples (6) and
(9)), (2) make an assertion by increasing the amplitude of the stroke and/or repeating the
stroke over an entire information unit (Example (29)), (3) emphasize a statement that
contradicts a previous assumption by directing the gesture towards the person being
contradicted (Example (3)), (4) express an appeal and visually depict a request through
positioning the hand out towards the interlocutor and repeating the gesture (Example (1)),
(5) convey a strong request or command directing the gesture downwards in a quick and
vigorous manner (Example (21)), (6) make a threat by increasing the amplitude of the
stroke and performing the gesture vigorously combined with tone and facial expression
(Example (30)), (7) indicate a question by sustaining the gesture after the person has
finished speaking (Examples (15) and (16)) or (8) express an offer by moving the gesture
forwards and away from the body towards an interlocutor (Example (17)). In some cases,
gestures explicitly signal in conjunction with speech that a specific response is required.
The gesturer may hold the gesture and/or repeat the stroke to elicit acknowledgement of
what has been said (Examples (3) and (26)), or hold the gesture after a question until an
answer has been given or to indicate that further clarification is necessary (Example (16)).
Gestures can also signal how the interlocutors see the discourse proceeding. An extra
gestural stroke with an emphatic downward movement can co-occur with a spoken
continuative and then pause on its recovery to signal that important information is about to
occur, to which the listener should pay attention (Examples (26) and (27)). Briefly holding
the gesture directed towards the interlocutor on its recovery towards resting position or the
next gesture phrase while the speaker pauses also functions as a continuative to indicate
that the speaker wishes to convey more information (Examples (20) and (26)).
3. Discussion
3.1. The role of gestures in relation to speech
In these data, I have demonstrated how quotable gestures can fulfill different
communicative functions. In short, they are multifunctional, fulfilling substantive,
interactive, and structural-discoursal functions simultaneously. Similar to previous

findings (reviewed in Kendon, 1997), these gestures represent what is spoken, modify
content, or add information not present in the spoken mode. In terms of their interpersonal
and interactive functions, they contribute to expressing the illocutionary force of utterances
and directing the course of the interaction. In this respect, this analysis supports Kendons
(1995) finding that gestures indicate the role of a unit of speech within the interactional
context, and this role is part of the utterance core. In other words, speakers perceive the role
of a unit of speech in interactions and its gestural realization from the earliest stages of
utterance development.
In these data, quotable gestures also play an integral role in structuring information into
messages or information units. Information units consist of two components: (1) what is
new, unexpected, or important, that is, what the listener should attend to, and (2) what is
given or assumed as known (Halliday, 1985). Gesture phrases from preparation to recovery
visually demarcate units of spoken information and gestural strokes give prominence to the
focus of the message, i.e., what the listener should attend to, after which the gesture
terminates. In some cases, gestural strokes mark an entire unit of information as prominent
in relation to other units (perhaps similar to beats), or a gesture visually maintains the
central theme of the message when it is given while marking the new focus. A gesture can
even mark a unit of information that has no spoken equivalent when the speaker wishes to
contrast the previous information focus with a new one. It appears that the end of an
information unit usually determines gestural termination, rather than hearing the lexical
affiliate of a gesture (as Morrel-Samuels and Krauss, 1992 have suggested). Although
particular topics of conversation such as drinking, money, or streetwiseness motivate
the occurrence of their quotable gestural equivalents, textual meaning appears to determine
precisely where gestural phrases and strokes occur at the discoursal level. Context (both
preceding and following) shapes textual meaning and determines the occurrence of
gestures in relation to speech.
These findings support McNeills (1992, 2000) conclusions, based on his analysis of
idiosyncratic representational gestures in relation to speech, that a key function of
gestures is to mark the discourse functions of utterances. Similarly to McNeills findings,
gestural performance contrasts what is newsworthy, from background information in
constructing meaning. In some cases, the gestural stroke foregrounds the information focus
within the part of the information unit that is new information, while in other cases it
contributes to contrastive emphasis between information units. Gestures enable the speaker
to both create and refer to the discoursal context. Like idiosyncratic or improvisational
gestures, quotable gestures play a key role in shaping discourse into meaningful units.
3.2. Gestural typologies
Since Efron (1972), studies on gesture have tended to maintain a distinction between
gestures that co-occur with speech and are improvisational or idiosyncratic in character and
those that are codified, having pre-established form meaning relationships that can be
understood independently of speech. De Ruiter (2000), Krauss et al. (2000) and McNeill
and Duncan (2000: 143) maintain this distinction and do not include quotable gestures in
studies of gestural behavior in relation to speech. However, from these data, it is clear that
quotable gestures function similarly to gesticulations or idiosyncratic/improvisational

gestures when used in conjunction with speech. Consequently, as Kendon (1995) has
pointed out, the boundary between quotable gesture and gesticulation or illustrator
(Ekman and Friesen, 1969) cannot be maintained in terms of how they are used in
spontaneous conversations.
Furthermore, these data have implications for categorizing gestures in terms of a single
communicative function. Scholars have tended to distinguish representational gestures
(iconic: McNeill, 1992; substantive: Kendon, 1995) from interactive gestures (Bavelas
et al., 1992, 1995; illocutionary marker gestures: Kendon, 1995; Streeck and Hartge, 1992)
and discoursal gestures (beats, cohesive gestures: McNeill, 1992; discourse unit markers:
Kendon, 1995). However, McNeill (1992, 2000) shows that representational gestures are
integrally involved in structuring discourse into meaningful units and therefore have
discoursal functions.9 Similarly, Kendon (1995) demonstrates how gestures that function
as illocutionary and discourse markers in southern Italian conversations relate
metaphorically to quotable gestures that have similar forms but function substantively.
Consequently, he argues, pragmatic and quotable gestures that are similar in form are not of
different types, but related, fulfilling different functions.
In the South African data, we see that the three quotable gestures analyzed here do not
simply depict aspects of spoken content, but fulfill substantive, interactive, and discoursal
functions simultaneously. Moreover, we find similar gestures to the illocutionary and
discourse marker gestures found in southern Italian conversations (Kendon, 1995). For
example, the gesture in which the side of one hand with extended fingers together is hit at
right angles across the upward facing palm of the other hand, functions as a pragmatic
gesture. It is an illocutionary marker in that it indicates a statement of fact giving additional
emphasis or force to what is said. However, it can also be used without speech to either
convey the message tell him forcefully, or, in soccer, to tell a player to forcefully kick an
opponent down. Another gesture that follows a similar pattern involves pointing the
forefinger towards the ground and moving the hand up and down. It indicates a command,
but can also, independently of speech, convey the meaning now or today. Thus,
maintaining distinctions between gestures on the basis of a single function may not be
possible. Rather than thinking in terms of gestural types, these and other data suggest that a
more productive route would be to explore the functional range of gestures that appear
similar in form (Brookes, 2004; Payrato, 2003), and to understand conventionalization and
detachability from speech along a continuum rather than in terms of categorical
distinctions (Kendon, 1988).
3.3. Origin, conventionalization, and detachability from speech
Conceptualizing gesture in terms of functional range and degree of independence from

speech may contribute to our understanding of the origin and development of gestures in
terms of conventionalization and detachability from spoken language. That quotable
9
That McNeills (1992, 2000) analysis does not reveal much about the interactive nature of the gestures he
studied may be an artefact of the experimental conditions under which data was collected. Subjects had to give as
complete and as accurate account as possible and the listeners were largely passive interactants.
gestures can function like gesticulations when used in conjunction with speech suggests
that some quotable gestures may have developed from gesticulations. Kendon (1995)
suggests that such a trajectory may be the case with some pragmatic gestures whereby
frequent repetition leads to stylization and the emergence of quotable gestures. South
African examples of pragmatic gestures described above could also have developed in this
way.
In the case of substantive gesticulations, a similar process from gesticulation to quotable
gesture may occur. If speakers begin to associate a particular gesticulation with a word or
phrase, their co-occurrence may become conventionalized. In this way, a form-meaning
relationship becomes established, and the gesture may function as a substitute for its
spoken equivalent within the flow of speech. If various conditions occur, such as the need to
communicate when it is not possible to speak, to participate in more than one exchange
simultaneously, or to communicate secretly, its conventionalized form-meaning relation-
ship may facilitate its use independently of speech.
In the South African data, we have one example of a gesture that appears to have
emerged in this way. The gesture for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), in which
the last three fingers are extended with thumb and forefinger held together at the tips,
emerged in 2002. Although similar in form to the gesture for perfect/okay and the ring
gesture in southern Italy, it is held at any angle with the three fingers foregrounded.
Before May 2002, it appeared mainly to accompany and illustrate phrases such as
amagama amathathu the three letters a common euphemism for HIV. The use of the
metaphor of three to refer to HIV in spoken language is common resulting in numerous
references, e.g. Three Series (reference to BMW). In May 2002, we observed this
gesture being used as an accompaniment to metaphorical spoken phrases referring to
HIV. Although observed in everyday conversations, native speakers insisted there was no
gesture for HIV and that this gesture meant three when used independently of spoken
language. However, by July 2002, native speakers readily glossed this gesture as
meaning HIV and produced the gesture if asked for the gestural equivalent of HIV.
Examining instances of use independently of speech, its most common uses appear to be
to communicate secretly about a persons status in situations where a person might be
overheard, or to substitute the gesture in preference to saying a person may be HIV
positive when communicating in private.
The reverse process may also be possible, whereby some quotable gestures do not
develop from gesticulations, but begin as autonomous having arisen because of
communicative needs where spoken language is not possible or from symbolic objects
or actions in ritual contexts (Morris et al., 1979). Kendon (1995) suggests that the Mani
giunte praying hands, a gesture that functions as an illocutionary marker in southern Italy,
may have derived from ritual religious use in previous centuries. In the case of a number of
South African gestures, such as the Clever Gesture, it is possible to argue that it could have
originated either in conjunction with spoken language or independently of speech. In the
latter case, it may have arisen to warn someone to look or watch out, when at a distance,
or for secret communication. Speakers may have then used it to illustrate the concept of
seeing in conjunction with spoken language, and its semantic range expanded as it
became useful to express other concepts related to seeing or perception. It is also
possible that the gesture originally illustrated concepts related to seeing in conjunction
with spoken language, and has come to be used across a wider semantic domain with, and
then independently of speech. If a gesture (with its associated meaning) comes to have
particular social significance within a community in that it expresses important social
concerns, conditions, or relations, its symbolic import may also lead to its meaning
becoming established, giving it specific symbolic currency.
While suggesting that the Clever Gesture originates from its literal meaning see, many
cultures make use of metaphors taken from the field of perception to express concepts
concerning intelligence, cognitive functioning, and mental activity. For example, in the
sign language of Aboriginal Australians, the gesture for mad is made by beating on
ones ear (he cannot hear well) (Kendon, 1992b). The Clever Gestures original meaning
could have been metaphorical, i.e. someone who sees well with the eyes of his mind, rather
than literal.10 Socio-historical conditions suggest the clever gesture may well have first
expressed this semantic meaning. As early as the 1940s in Gauteng townships, male youth
developed an extensive street culture of criminal gangs and non-criminal street corner
groups (Glaser, 2000). Their urban identity is encapsulated in the term a clever, a person
who is sufficiently streetwise to survive on the township streets and has the ability through
awareness, knowledge, and insight to outsmart his opponents. At the core of these
characteristics is the notion of sight that the gestures form represents, and any action that
is deemed characteristic of this urban identity can invoke the use of the Clever Gesture
(Brookes, 2001). Perhaps the gesture became associated with this particular application of
the word clever because of the underlying notion of seeing. Its association led to this
form-meaning relationship becoming conventionalized and detachable because of its
usefulness on the township streets to distinguish between those young men who were
clevers and those who were not, a function it continues to have to this day (Brookes,
2001). At the same time, it may have been used, like it is today, to warn people of tsotsis
crooks, the kind of young man who uses his cleverness to rob other people.
It appears then that quotable gestures may originate independently of speech or have
their source of origin in gesticulation. With gesticulation, spoken language plays a key role
in determining form and establishing form-meaning relationships. In the case of the HIV
gesture, it has emerged through literal depiction of a spoken metaphorical reference. With
the Clever Gesture, it may have emerged in a similar way. When examining common
spoken phrases associated with the Clever Gesture, we find phrases such as Uzibhekile He/
She is watching herself [is smart] that at one level express literally what the gesture
depicts. Perhaps the gesture may have originally illustrated this phrase, and then the spoken
phrase took on new meanings to express new social conditions.
In these data, we have found examples of this semantic expansion happening in relation
to social environment. The quotable gesture for the message Ke ya spina/two spinIll be
back involves one hand with forefinger extended pointing towards the ground rotating
from the wrist. Spinagoing around or back and forth had, when these data were
collected, come to be used metaphorically in speech to refer to those committing crime (at
that time, crime having reached endemic proportions), that is, Ba ya spinathey are going
around [they are stealing]. The Two Spin Gesture (as it is commonly glossed)
10
I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the possibility of a metaphorical origin for the Clever
Gesture.
accompanied this phrase when referring to stealing. However, speakers did not as yet
interpret this gesture to mean stealing without speech.
Using gesticulation in conjunction with new but related spoken meanings may be one
route by which these gestures expand their semantic range and become conventionalized.
Since spoken linguistic innovation is key to enhancing prestige and status among young
men, existing gestures may combine in new ways with the rapidly changing spoken lexicon
that is a feature of the argot, Iscamtho. If speakers begin to associate a gesture with a new
word or phrase, its co-occurrence may become conventionalized. If the gesture with its
associated meaning offers opportunities to express important conditions or social relations
(Brookes, 2001), and/or if various conditions such as the need for secret communication
require that it occurs independently of speech, these factors may lead to its detachability
from speech.
3.4. Norms of interaction and gestural behavior
The data presented in this paper demonstrate that gesture and speech are structurally
integrated into a single system of expression. Speakers use quotable gestures like
gesticulations to visually contribute to spoken content, direct the interaction, and draw
attention to specific aspects of the discourse for a variety of communicative effects. In
particular, gestures appear to play a key role in structuring discourse into meaningful units in
terms of information focus and background. However, it is possible to argue that intonation is
sufficient to structure information into messages, and substantive gestures do not always
contribute crucial information without which the message would not make sense. Moreover,
tone, in conjunction with spoken language features of modality and mood, can adequately
guide interaction. Consequently, in terms of getting the message across, gestures could be
considered redundant in many instances. In terms of participant, communicative purpose,
and situation, the frequency and type of gesture also vary. For example, in the South African
context, women and male adults make less use of spontaneous and codified representational
gestures, and young men gesture less in interactions with women and older community
members. Consequently, gestural occurrence and the nature of gestural expression cannot be
completely explained in terms of narrow communicative purposes.
In this regard, one recurring reason given by township informants for gestural use is the
importance of not being boring. Gesture use appears, in part, to be governed by such norms
of interaction as the need to present what is said so that it is maximally entertaining to
participants. Among young men, from whom these examples of gestural use are drawn,
skilful use of the male youth argot, Iscamtho, and gesture in narratives that hold the
attention of their peers is crucial to gaining and maintaining access and status within male
youth social networks. With status under constant negotiation, and where participants do
not automatically accord attention to speakers within these all male groupings, young men
must continually compete to produce the most aesthetically entertaining performance to
control interactions and maintain their social position. Such competitive performance
requires that speakers wittily combine language and gesture for maximum humorous
effect, and do this in new and innovative ways that give them the edge over their peers.
It is these social norms and values that govern aspects of communicative conduct at the
interactional level. In conversations among young men, the aesthetic value of
communicative behavior comes to the fore. Gesture as visual medium is ideally suited to
realizing the aesthetic nature of communication. Hence, we see the kinds of visually
dramatic gestures described in the telling of Little Red Riding Hood (Kendon, 1997). In
this story, the speaker enacts the action of slicing open the stomach of the wolf with a
hatchet. Kendon (1997) suggests that the manner in which the gesture enacts this action
provides greater specificity to the spoken message. However, background knowledge on
the part of the speaker and listener makes this gesture unnecessary for purely informative
purposes. Instead, it is the wider communicative purpose of storytelling that brings visual
aspects such as seemingly redundant representational gestures into play. In the case of
McNeills (1992) experiments, researchers framed the task of retelling the story of Tweety
Bird and Sylvester in terms of giving accurate and detailed information for the purposes of
conveying the story to a third party. Hence, speakers used gestures to add detailed
information on how actions took place.
Gestures not only reference the status of speech segments within and across information
units in the flow of discourse, they also reference, through the nature of their substantive
and textual functions, communicative purpose and therefore communicative genre in
relation to other possible communicative purposes. Gestures express both textual meaning
in structuring information into messages, and reference meaning and purpose of texts in
relation to communicative context. In the same way that visual signs such as pictures,
format, and physical presentation can contribute to distinguishing the genre of one written
text from another, gestural behavior functions similarly in relation to speech. Gestural
behavior presents the framework within which participants should understand and respond
to spoken text, i.e., this is an explanation, the details of which you will need to convey
accurate information to a third party in the case of Tweety Bird experiments, or this is a
story with which I would like to entertain you in Kendons example.
Just as gestural behavior organizes information into units of meaning and references text
type and communicative purpose, gestural behavior also references the interactive nature
of communication as exchange. Gestures express the interactional moves of utterances and
at the same time indicate speaker attitude in relation to utterance and interlocutor response.
Therefore, patterns of gestural behavior play a role in expressing interpersonal roles and
relationships within the immediate interaction. However, these roles and relationships
extend beyond the immediate interactive event and reflect the wider socio-cultural
framework that shapes communicative interactions. Gestural behavior indexes, according
to cultural norms of interaction, the nature of the relationships among participants,
representation of self, as well as social identities.
In this cultural context, gestural frequency and style index levels of familiarity and
politeness. Gesture is also part of expressing gender, age, sub-cultural affiliation, and local
as well as broader social divisions. For example, gestures and gestural style are an essential
part of appearing streetwise and city slick, but excessive use of gesture is a symbol of the
disrespectable and delinquent in township society (Brookes, 2001). Excessive use of
gestures suggests a young man is a tsotsi crook. Consequently, a young mans talk and
gesture should not make him appear too much like a tsotsi, but sufficiently streetwise to his
peers. Simultaneously, gestural styles also indicate sub-cultural affiliation among male
social networks. Thus, gestures reference and shape immediate situational context in terms
of interpersonal aspects, social relationships, local identities, as well as broader social
divisions. Driessen (1992) demonstrates these multiple roles in his study of gestural
behavior in male sociability in drinking establishments in rural Andalusia, where
emblematic gestural behavior is central to expressing and negotiating local male identities
and status within in a specific social space.
The nature of gestural communication can only partly be explained in terms of narrow
communicative purpose. To do so, is to overlook its role in textualizing interactions to the
larger social context. In this respect, the visual nature of gesture plays a unique role. As a
visual medium, gesture not only plays a role in fulfilling immediate communicative
purpose substantively, interpersonally, and textually, it makes a key contribution to the
aesthetic nature of communication. It is also part of self-expression, part of presenting the
persona, at multiple levels. Visually gesture allows interactants to convey and shape micro-
identities within the immediate and wider social framework, a role that speech can only
partially fulfill. Thus, it is a form of self-expression that borders on the symbolic beyond
language, expressing levels of sociability and identity beyond what spoken language can
convey.
4. Conclusions
To begin to understand the role of gesture, in particular the role of quotable gestures, I have
started out by exploring at the discoursal level what quotable gestures afford [their] users as
a means of communication (Kendon, 1993: 7). Using data from naturally occurring contexts
of use, I have shown how gestures are integrally involved in conjunction with spoken
language in expressing substantive, interpersonal, and textual meaning. Their synchronized
integration in realizing meaning at multiple levels, suggests that gesture and speech work
together as a unitary system of expression. Moreover, contrary to earlier findings that gestures
originate during pauses in speech (Beattie and Aboudan, 1994; Butterworth and Beattie,
1978; Butterworth and Hadar, 1989), these data confirm that gestures originate during speech
articulation (McNeill, 1992; Nobe, 2000). Consequently, speechgesture timing and the
seamless integration of gesture and speech do not suggest speech production breakdown or
that gestures aid speech production (Butterworth and Beattie, 1978; Butterworth and Hadar,
1989; Feyereisen and de Lannoy, 1991; Krauss et al., 2000; De Ruiter, 2000). On the contrary,
this analysis demonstrates how gesture and speech systematically structure units of meaning
distinguishing focus from background at the discoursal level. Gesture and speech
synchronize around a basic unit of information, the message, that simultaneously
expresses theme and rheme, given and new information, and focus and background. In most
cases, a gesture from onset to completion demarcates this basic unit of information, while the
stroke marks the focus within the information unit. From a psycholinguistic view, McNeill
(2000) describes the information unit as a Growth Point (GP) that is the smallest
psychological unit of expression in which a psychological predicate or information focus is
distinguished from background context. This structuring reflects the mental construction of
ideas, and speakers structure speech and gesture to build these contrasts to create meaningful
units of expression or idea units (McNeill, 2000: 315).
These findings have implications for theories about the relationship between gesture and
speech and processes of speech and gesture production. Speech and gesture synchronize
around contrasts that are essential in the construction of meaningful messages, both in terms
of realizing speakers intended meanings and recipient comprehension. Discoursal context
shapes the expression of contrasts and thus the timing of gestures in relation to speech.
Taking context with the field of oppositions (McNeill, 2000: 313) into account, one can
predict the timing of gestural execution and gestural stroke. Context is key for modeling
speech and gesture production. McNeills (1992) GP model therefore appears more
appropriate to understanding how gesture and speech are produced than information-
processing (IP) models do (De Ruiter, 2000; Krauss et al., 2000; Cassell and Prevost, 1996).
However, the GP model of thinking-for-speaking that McNeill proposes does not
account for the absence of gesture in contexts of speaking. McNeill (1992) has suggested
that communicative acts have both imagistic and linguistic aspects that are realized through
gesture and speech. Yet gestures are not part of every utterance. If gesture is an essential
aspect of the realization of thought and expression, it should necessarily be a feature of
every utterance. While the GP model accurately predicts gesturespeech timing and
context, it cannot predict gestural occurrence. McNeill (2000) suggests that gestures may
function to clamp contexts together and this function may predict gestural occurrence in
some cases. However, it cannot be the only motivation for gestural occurrence. McNeill
hints at a possible answer to the question of gestural occurrence in emphasizing context as a
central component of any speechgesture model. He states that every utterance, even
though seemingly self-contained, contains content from outside its own structure. This
other content ties the utterance to the context at the level of thinking. (2000: 324). The
question is: how far does one take the notion of context or to what level does one need to
contextualize utterance? While advocates of IP models do not incorporate context as a key
explanatory factor, McNeill appears to take context only to the level of discoursal context.
This limitation may partly be due to the experimental conditions of data collection where
gestural studies have excluded much of the normal interactive and social contextual aspects
of naturally occurring communication. What I am suggesting is that we extend McNeills
crucial insight that context is central to understanding the production of gesture and speech,
and that gestures play a key role in textually structuring and tying discourse together, to
seeing gesture as textually referencing larger contextual aspects, including communicative
and interactive goals as well as representation of self and social identity. Taking these
aspects into consideration as part of any model of speech and gesture production is the only
way to more fully understand the nature and patterns of gestural use, as I have argued
above. Thus, we need to understand gesture at the intersection of communicative and
interactive purposes and presentation of self. The notion of context must inevitably be
extended to incorporate the grammar of interaction based on underlying socio-cultural
practices and conditions.
Such a model has implications for the conditions under which data collection takes
place and therefore for what we can conclude about the nature of gestural expression
particularly under experimental conditions. The nature of the task, participants, and social
conditions clearly impact on the frequency, nature, function, and role of gestures in
interactions. If experiments exclude much of the normal context of everyday interactions,
we are likely to consider gestures only in terms of narrow communicative and cognitive
purposes. For example, if we ask subjects to retell a visual cartoon as accurately as possible
to a silent participant who does not seek clarification, in order that they may convey
accurate information to a third party, we are likely to see few interactive gestures or
gestures functioning interactively. We might also conclude that a primary purpose of
gesture is to convey information that spoken language cannot easily express. In this sense I
would agree with Krauss et al. (2000) that the communicative contribution of gesture may
be overstated. At the same time, if we exclude situational and social context, we might also
overstate the role of gestures in cognition. Considering gestural behavior in natural
contexts of use, I suggest that the primary function of gestures is textual, not only at the
level of discourse but also in referencing communicative acts to immediate and wider
social contexts in terms of how individuals mean and are understood, both for narrow
communicative purposes and as social beings.
References
Bavelas, Janet B., 1992. Redefining language. Nonverbal linguistic acts in face-to-face dialogue. In: Baburey
Fisher Mem. Lectunknown:book, University Utah, Dept. Communication, Salt Lake City.
Bavelas, Janet B., Chovil, N., Coates, L., Roe, L., 1995. Gestures specialized for dialogue. Perspectives in Social
Psychology Bulletin 21, 394405.
Bavelas, Janet B., Chovil, N., Lawrie, D.A., Wade, A., 1992. Interactive gestures. Discourse Processes 15, 469
489.
Beattie, G., Aboudan, R., 1994. Gestures, pauses and speech: an experimental investigation of the effects of
changing social context on their precise temporal relationships. Semiotica 99, 239272.
Brookes, Heather, 2001. O clever. Hes streetwise. When gestures become quotable: The case of the clever
gesture. Gesture 1 (2), 167184.
Brookes, Heather, 2004. A repertoire of South African quotable gestures. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14
(2), 186224.
Butterworth, B., Beattie, G.W., 1978. Gesture and silence as indicators of planning in speech. In: Campbell,
R.N., Smith, P.T. (Eds.), Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language, vol. IV: Formal and
Experimental Approaches. Plenum, London, pp. 347360.
Butterworth, B., Hadar, U., 1989. Gesture, speech and computational stages: a reply to McNeill. Psychological
Review 96, 168174.
Calbris, Genevie`ve, 1990. The Semiotics of French Gestures. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Cassell, J., Prevost, S., 1996. Distribution of semantic features across speech and gesture by humans and machines.
In: Messing, L. (Ed.), Proceedings of WIGLS (Workshop on the Integration of Gesture in Language and
Speech). Applied Science and Engineering Laboratories, Wilmington, Del., pp. 253269.
De Fornel, Michel, 1992. The return gesture: some remarks on context inference and iconic gesture. In: Auer,
Peter, Di Luzio, Aldo (Eds.), The Contextualization of Language. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Phildelphia, pp.
159176.
De Jorio, Andrea, 1832. La Mimica degli Antichi Investigata nel Gestire Napoletano. Fibreno, Napoli.
De Ruiter, Jan, 2000. The production of gesture and speech. In: McNeill, David (Ed.), Language and Gesture.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 284311.
Driessen, Henk, 1992. Gestured masculinity: body and sociability in rural Andalusia. In: Bremmer, Jan, Roo-
denburg, Herman (Eds.), A Cultural History of Gesture. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 237
249.
Efron, David, 1972 [1941]. Gesture, Race, and Culture. Mouton, The Hague.
Ekman, Paul, Friesen, Wallace, 1969. The repertoire of non-verbal behavior: categories, origins, usage and coding.
Semiotica 1 (1), 4998.
Feyereisen, Pierre, de Lannoy, Jacques-Dominique, 1991. Gesture and Speech: Psychological Investigations.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Glaser, Clive, 2000. Bo-Tsotsi: The Youth Gangs of Soweto, 19351976. David Philip, Cape Town.
Halliday, Michael, 1985. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Grammer. Edward Arnold, London.
Kendon, Adam, 1972. Some relationships between body motion and speech. An analysis of an example. In:
Siegman, A., Pope, B. (Eds.), Studies of Dyadic Communication. Pergamon, Elmsford, NY, pp. 177210.
Kendon, Adam, 1980. Gesticulation and speech: two aspects of the process of utterance. In: Key, Mary R. (Ed.),
The Relationships of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 207227.
Kendon, Adam, 1988. How gestures can become like words. In: Poyatos, Fernando (Ed.), Cross-Cultural
Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication. Hogrefe, Toronto, pp. 131141.
Kendon, Adam, 1990. Gesticulation, quotable gestures, and signs. Senri Ethnological Studies 27, 5377.
Kendon, Adam, 1992a. Some recent work from Italy on quotable gestures (emblems). Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 2 (2), 92107.
Kendon, Adam, 1992b. Abstraction in gesture. Semiotica 90 (3/4), 225250.
Kendon, Adam, 1993. Gesture and Environment in Naples. Paper presented at the American Anthropological
Association Annual Meeting, November, Washington, DC.
Kendon, Adam, 1995. Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation.
Journal of Pragmatics 23, 247279.
Kendon, Adam, 1997. Gesture. Annual Review of Anthropology 26, 109128.
Kendon, Adam, 2000. Language and gesture: unity or duality? In: McNeill, David (Ed.), Language and Gesture.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 4763.
Kendon, Adam, 2004. Some contrasts in gesticulation in Neapolitan speakers and speakers in Northamptonshire.
In: Muller, Cornelia, Posner, Roland (Eds.), The Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gesture. Weidler
Buchverlag, Berlin, pp. 173193.
Krauss, Robert M., Chen, Yihsiu, Gottesman, Rebecca F., 2000. Lexical gestures and lexical access: a
process model. In: McNeill, David (Ed.), Language and Gesture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 261283.
Levelt, W., Richardson, G., La Heij, W., 1985. Pointing and voicing in deictic expressions. Journal of Memory and
Language 24, 133164.
Mayberry, Rachel, Jaques, Joselynne, 2000. Gesture production during stuttered speech: insights into the nature of
gesturespeech integration. In: McNeil, David (Ed.), Language and Gesture. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 199214.
McClave, E.Z., 1991. Intonation and Gesture. Ph.D. thesis. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
McNeill, David, 1985. So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review 92, 350371.
McNeill, David, 1987. Psycholinguistics: A New Approach. Harper and Row, New York.
McNeill, David, 1992. Hand and Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
McNeill, David, 2000. Catchments and contexts: non-modular factors in speech and gesture production. In:
McNeill, David (Ed.), Language and Gesture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 312328.
McNeill, David, Duncan, Susan, 2000. Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In: McNeill, David (Ed.),
Language and Gesture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 141161.
Morrel-Samuels, P., Krauss, Robert M., 1992. Word familiarity predicts temporal asynchrony of hand gestures and
speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 18, 615622.
Morris, Desmond, Collett, Peter, Marsh, Peter, OShaughnessy, Mary, 1979. Gestures: Their Origins and
Distribution. Cape, London.
Muller, Cornelia, 1994. Semantic structure of motional gestures and lexicalization patterns in Spanish and German
descriptions of motion-events. CLS 30 (1), 281295.
Nobe, Shuichi, 1996. Cognitive Rhythms Gestures and Acoustic Aspects of Speech. Ph.D. thesis. University of
Chicago, IL.
Nobe, Shuichi, 2000. Where do most spontaneous representational gesture actually occur with respect to speech?
In: McNeill, David (Ed.), Language and Gesture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 186198.
Ntshangase, Dumisani, 1995. Indaba yami i-straight: language and language practices in Soweto. In: Mesthrie, Raj
(Ed.), Language and Social History: Studies in South African Sociolinguistics. David Philip, Cape Town, pp.
291297.
Payrato, Llus, 1993. A pragmatic view on autonomous gestures: a first repertoire of Catalan emblems. Journal of
Pragmatics 20, 193216.
Payrato, Llus, 2003. What does The Same Gesture mean? Emblematic gestures from some cognitive-linguistic
theories. In: Rector, M., et al. (Eds.), Gestures. Meaning and Use. Universidade Fernando Pessoa, Porto.
Poggi, Isabella, Zomparelli, Marina, 1987. Lessico e grammatica nei gesti e nelle parole. In: Poggi, Isabella
(Ed.), Le Parole Nella Testa: Guida a Uneducazione Linguistica Cognitivista. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp.
291328.
Schegloff, E.A., 1984. On some gestures relation to talk. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of
Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 266296.
Sherzer, Joel, 1972. Verbal and non-verbal deixis: the pointed lip gesture among the San Blas Cuna. Language in
Society 2 (1), 117131.
Sherzer, Joel, 1991. The Brazilian thumbs-up gesture. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 1 (2), 189197.
Streeck, Jurgen, Hartge, Ulrike, 1992. Previews: gestures at the transition place. In: Auer, Peter, di Luzio, Aldo
(Eds.), The Contextualization of Language. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 135157.
Heather Brookes is a Chief Research Specialist at the Human Sciences Research Council in South Africa.

Heather Brookes On Gestures and Emblems - 2005

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Heather Brookes On Gestures and Emblems - 2005

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 20442085

What gestures do: Some communicative functions

Keywords: Quotable gestures; South Africa; Function; Speechgesture production; Conventionalization;

E-mail address: HBrookes@hsrc.ac.za.

1.1. Data, context, and methodology

2. Communicative functions of quotable gestures

2.1. The Drinking Gesture

Fig. 1. The Drinking Gesture.

On ke tlohele jwalaI quit beer, he represents quit by moving both hands

On njemerely, the stroke of the Drinking Gesture occurs, communicating

2.2. The Money Gesture

Fig. 2. The Money Gesture.

2.3. The Clever Gesture

Fig. 3. The Clever Gesture.

3.1. The role of gestures in relation to speech

interactive, and structural-discoursal functions simultaneously. Similar to previous

3.2. Gestural typologies

quotable gestures function similarly to gesticulations or idiosyncratic/improvisational

3.3. Origin, conventionalization, and detachability from speech

Conceptualizing gesture in terms of functional range and degree of independence from

3.4. Norms of interaction and gestural behavior

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen