Abstract
This paper analyzes the internal structure of gestures, namely preparation, stroke, and recovery, by making a close reading of early (1970’s onwards) definitions. Those definitions are centered around segmenting the gesture based on saliency, creating an opposition between the stroke, the most well-defined part of the gesture, and other phases. Although this definition initially relied heavily on the association to speech, the need to operationalize the annotation forced definitions more linked to articulation features (Linguistic Annotation System for Gestures, Bressem et al., 2013). Later studies, mainly linking gestures to phonological structures of speech, started to rely on gesture kinematics to define gesture structure, which are motion-based features such as velocity profiles and movement targets (Kita et al., 1998; Loehr, 2004; Rohrer et al., 2023). The latter provides a qualitative base for the use of motion tracking technology in gesture studies, leading to the interpretation that the stroke can be better defined by its velocity profile than in connection with articulation features. In terms of theory, this impacts how gestures can be segmented and understood in language, without necessarily needing to fully integrate the phonology of the utterance it is associated to. It seems that gesture-speech association depends on the transparency it shows to its speech affiliated, moving from a tight synchrony for less representational and beat gestures, to a loose synchrony for iconic and recurrent gestures.
References
1. Kendon A. Some relationships between body motion and speech. In: Siegman AW, Pope B, editors. Studies in dyadic communication. New York: Pergamon Press; 1972. p. 177–216 (Pergamon general psychology series; PGPS-7).
2. Chafe WL. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994.
3. Kendon A. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
4. Grice M, Ladd DR, Arvaniti A. On the place of phrase accents in intonational phonology. Phonology 2000; 17(2):143–85.
5. Gussenhoven C, Chen A, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody. First edition. Impression: 1. Oxford United Kingdom, New York NY: Oxford University Press; 2020. (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics).
6. Barros CA, Mello H. The C-ORAL-BRASIL proposal for the treatment of multimodal corpora data: the BGEST corpus pilot project. In: Grajales Ramírez A, Molina Mejía J, Valdivia Martin P, editors. Digital Humanities, Corpus and Language Technology: A look from diverse case studies. University of Groningen Press; 2023. p. 143–62.
7. Raso T, Mello H, editors. C-ORAL-BRASIL: Corpus de referência do português brasileiro falado informal. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG; 2012.
8. McNeill D. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992.
9. Loehr DP. Gesture and intonation. Georgetown: Georgetown University; 2004.
10. Meinschaefer J. Sonorität: Sprachstruktur und Sprachverstehen. Tübingen: Narr; 2003. (Cognitio; vol 13).
11. van der Hulst H, Ritter N. The Syllable. De Gruyter; 1999.
12. Fernández EM, Cairns HS, editors. Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. Chichester West Sussex England, Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. (Fundamentals of linguistics).
13. Brentari D. 3. Phonology. In: Pfau R, Steinbach M, Woll B, editors. Sign language: An international handbook. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton; 2012. p. 21–54 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft = Handbooks of linguistics and communication science = Manuels de linguistique et des sciences de communication; Bd. 37).
14. Fricke E, Bressem J, Müller C. 123. Gesture families and gestural fields. In: Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke E, Ladewig SH, McNeill D, Bressem J, editors. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 38/2. DE GRUYTER; 2014. p. 1630–40.
15. Bressem J, Müller C. 119. A repertoire of German recurrent gestures with pragmatic functions. In: Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke E, Ladewig SH, McNeill D, Bressem J, editors. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 38/2. DE GRUYTER; 2014. p. 1575–91.
16. McNeill D. Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005.
17. Gullberg M. Gesture as a Communication Strategy in Second Language Discourse: A Study of Learners of French and Swedish [Doctoral Thesis (monograph)]. Lund University Press; 1998.
18. Müller C. Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations? Front Psychol 2018; 9.
19. Kita S. How representational gestures help speaking. In: McNeill D, editor. Language and Gesture. Cambridge University Press; 2000. p. 162–85.
20. Bressem J. Systems of Gesture Coding and Annotation. In: Cienki AJ, editor. The Cambridge handbook of gesture studies. Cambridge United Kingdom, New York NY: Cambridge University Press; 2024. p. 158–81 (Cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics).
21. Lausberg H. The NEUROGES® Analysis System for Nonverbal Behavior and Gesture: The Complete Research Coding Manual including an Interactive Video Learning Tool and Coding Template. Bern: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers; 2019 [cited 2025 Jan 29]. Available from: URL: https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/121437.
22. Bressem J, Ladewig SH, Müller C. 71. Linguistic Annotation System for Gestures. In: Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke E, Ladewig SH, McNeill D, Tessendorf S, editors. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 38/1. DE GRUYTER; 2013. p. 1098–124.
23. Krahmer E, Swerts M. The effects of visual beats on prosodic prominence: Acoustic analyses, auditory perception and visual perception. Journal of Memory and Language 2007; 57(3):396–414.
24. Bosker HR, Peeters D. Beat gestures influence which speech sounds you hear. Proc Biol Sci 2021; 288(1943):20202419.
25. Esteve-Gibert N, Prieto P. Prosodic Structure Shapes the Temporal Realization of Intonation and Manual Gesture Movements. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56(3):850–64.
26. Trujillo JP, Simanova I, Bekkering H, Özyürek A. The communicative advantage: how kinematic signaling supports semantic comprehension. Psychol Res 2020; 84(7):1897–911.
27. Trujillo JP, Holler J. The Kinematics of Social Action: Visual Signals Provide Cues for What Interlocutors Do in Conversation. Brain Sci 2021; 11(8).
28. Ladewig SH. 121. The cyclic gesture. In: Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke E, Ladewig SH, McNeill D, Bressem J, editors. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 38/2. DE GRUYTER; 2014. p. 1605–18.
29. Müller C. Redebegleitende Gesten: Kulturgeschichte, Theorie, Sprachvergleich. Berlin: Spitz; 1998.
30. Müller C. A Toolbox of Methods for Gesture Analysis. In: Cienki AJ, editor. The Cambridge handbook of gesture studies. Cambridge United Kingdom, New York NY: Cambridge University Press; 2024. p. 182–216 (Cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics).
31. Müller C, Cienki A, Fricke E, Ladewig SH, McNeill D, Bressem J, editors. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 38/2. DE GRUYTER; 2014.
32. Kendon A. How gestures can become like words. In: Potayos F, editor. Cross-Cultural Peerspectives in Nonverbal Communication. Toronto: C. J. Hugrefe; 1988. p. 131–41.
33. Müller C. Wie Gesten bedeuten Eine kognitiv-linguistische und sequenzanalytische Perspektive. Sprache und Literatur 2010; 41(1):37–68.
34. Goldin-Meadow S, Brentari D. Gesture, sign, and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behav Brain Sci 2017; 40:e46.
35. Kita S, van Gijn I, van der Hulst H. Movement phases in sign and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by human coders. In: Wachsmuth I, Frohlich M, editors. Gesture and sign language in human computer interaction: International gesture workshop, Bielefeld, Germany, Sept. 17-19, 1997 ; proc. Berlin: Springer; 1998 (Lecture notes in computer science [including Lecture notes in artificial intelligence]; vol. 1371).
36. Shattuck‐Hufnagel S, Yasinnik Y, Veilleux N, Renwick M. A Method for Studying the Time Alignment of Gestures and Prosody in American English: ‘Hits’ and Pitch Accents in Academic-Lecture-Style Speech. In: Esposito A, editor. Fundamentals of verbal and nonverbal communication and the biometric issue. Washington DC: IOS Press; 2007 (NATO security through science series, 1574-5597. E. Human and societal dynamics; vol. 18).
37. Yasinnik Y, Renwick M, Shattuck‐Hufnagel S. The timing of speech‐accompanying gestures with respect to prosody. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 115(5):97–102.
38. Rohrer PL, Tütüncübasi U, Vilà-Giménez I, Florit-Pons J, Esteve-Gibert N, Ren P et al. The MultiModal MultiDimensional (M3D) labeling system; 2023.
39. Trujillo JP, Simanova I, Bekkering H, Özyürek A. Communicative intent modulates production and comprehension of actions and gestures: A Kinect study. Cognition 2018; 180:38–51.
40. Bressem J. Repetitions in gesture: A cognitive-linguistic and usage-based perspective. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton; 2021. (Applications of Cognitive Linguisticsvolume 46).
41. Pouw W, Trujillo J, Rutger Bosker H, Drijvers L, Hoetjes M, Holler J et al., editors. GESPIN 2023: Broadening perspectives, integrating views; 2023.
42. Barros CA. A relação entre unidades gestuais e quebras prosódicas: o caso da unidade informacional Parentético [Unpublished MA Thesis]. Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; 2021.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Camila Antônio Barros
