CC BY
78
УДК 81'139
К. Мюллер
доктор филологических наук, профессор кафедры прикладной лингвистики факультета социальных наук и культурологии, Европейский университет Виадрина, Франкфурт-на-Одере, Германия; e-mail: cmh.mueller@t-online.de
ЖЕСТЫ В РЕЧИ: ПЕРЕМЕННЫЕ КОГНИТИВНО-СЕМАНТИЧЕСКИЕ И ПРАГМАТИЧЕСКИЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ
В статье исследуется вариативность отношений между речью и сопровождающим ее жестом. Предлагается обзор риторических и лингвистических исследований жестов в речи. Основываясь на двух эмпирических исследованиях, автор показывает, что связь между жестом и речью имеет тесный, но гибкий характер. Квантитативный кросс-лингвистический анализ жестов, сопровождающих глаголы движения в условиях естественного диалога, демонстрирует, что данные глаголы обычно используются с референциальными жестами движения, но также и с перформативными и дейктическими жестами. Во втором исследовании, представленном в статье, изучается влияние буквального и метафорического контекста на жесты. Участникам эксперимента было предложено воспроизвести определенное предложение и сопроводить его жестами. Результаты показали, что в буквальных контекстах используются телесные жесты, а в метафорических - как телесные, так и сокращенные жесты руки. Автор делает вывод о том, что жесты являются телесными концеп-туализациями, репрезентирующими то, как говорящие представляют события. Подчеркивается, что жесты вариативны в функциональном плане, обладают специфической семантической или прагматической функцией и указывают на семантическую точку зрения (перспективу) на вербализуемое событие.
Ключевые слова: жест; событие движения в пространстве; метафора.
МиПег C.
Dr. habil., Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Faculty of Social and Cultural Sciences at European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder); e-mail: cmh. mueller@t-online.de
USING GESTURES WITH SPEECH: VARIABLE COGNITIVE-SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC RELATIONS1
This article explores the variability of relations between gestures and concurrent speech. After a brief excursion into the rhetoric history of gesture studies current research into gesture and speech from a linguistic perspective is alluded to. Based on two very different empirical studies the point is made that the relation between
1 The research has been supported by RScF (grant № 14-48-00067).
gestures and speech is tight but at the same time flexible. A quantitative cross-linguistic study of gestures with motion verbs in naturalistic conversations shows that motion-verbs mostly co-occur with motion related referential gestures, but may also co-occur with performative and deictic gestures. A second study investigates in a priming design the influence of 'literal' versus 'metaphoric' context on co-speech gestures. Subjects were asked to repeat the target sentence and perform a gesture with it. Results showed that literal contexts mostly body gestures were used, but in metaphoric contexts both body gestures and more reduced hand gestures were used. As a consequence, it is suggested that gestures are embodied conceptualizations which show how people imagine the events they talk about. It is concluded that gestures vary with regard to function and thus highlight a specific function (semantic or pragmatic) and a semantic perspective on the verbalized event.
Key words: gesture; motion events; metaphor.
There are many works of art that indicate the fact that someone is speaking by showing the person with her or his hands up in the air, gesturing. On the other hand, people who do not speak are depicted with their hands down, in resting positions. Just think of Rodin's famous sculpture «the thinker», who is using his hands to support his head. Gesturing hands are so intricately bound to the act of speaking that they function as an icon for speaking in the visual arts.
Although this close relationship between the verbal and the bodily modes of expression has been known to rhetoricians since Classical times, modern linguistics 'proper', as much as discourse and conversation analysis, have not payed much attention to an analysis of gesture with speech until the nineties.
Notably, with the advent of cognitive science in the early 1990s this changed significantly. It was David McNeill's book Hand and Mind: What gestures reveal about thought that became a milestone for a fresh view on co-speech gesturing [17]. McNeill advanced a theory that made gestures a highly attractive field of study for psychologists and cognitive linguistics: he suggested that gestures reveal the imagistic part of speakers' thoughts. Despite this psychological view on gesture, he was in line with Adam Kendon's anthropological understanding of gesture and speech as two sides of the same process of utterance [14]. With these landmark insights at hand a field of gesture studies began to take shape, and with it, fertile grounds were provided to take up the rhetorical tradition and study why people use gestures while speaking. Recent books that explore gestures and speech from various disciplinary perspectives offer vivid testimony
of this development: Geneviève Calbris' The semiotics of French gestures and her Elements of meaning in gestures [3; 4], Alan Cienki and Cornelia Müller's edited volume Metaphor and gesture [5], Nick Enfield's The anatomy of meaning: speech, gesture, and composite utterances [10], Ellen Fricke's Origo, Geste und Raum: Lokaldeixis im Deutschen and Grammatik multimodal [11; 12], Adam Kendon's Gesture: Visible action as utterance [14], David McNeill's edited volume Language and gesture as well as his more recent book Gesture and Thought [18; 19], Jürgen Streeck's book Gesture craft [31], Cornelia Müller and Roland Posner's edited volume The semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures [26] and Müller's book Redebegleitende Gesten: Kulturgeschichte - Theorie -Sprachvergleich [22].
Against this background of linguistic gesture studies [25]this article addresses the variability of relations between hand gestures and concurrent speech. Despite an extremely tight relationship between gestures and their concurrent speech, there is no simple match between the two modalities of human expression. Since both, gestures, as much as language, fulfill multiple functions at the same time and both are independent articulatory modes, many forms of relations are imaginable [23]. Also scholars outside of speech-act theory proper basically agree, that verbal utterances realize something like a propositional content as well as some kind of illocutionary force [1; 30]. This article will suggest that one major reason for the variability of relations between gestures and speech is that gestures may highlight specific communicative functions. Generally speaken, gestures might relate to the semantic content or to the pragmatic function of a given verbal utterance by co-expressing semantic or pragmatic meaning. For instance, when looking at politician's gestures very rarely gestures depicting aspects of referential meaning are found, most of the time we see pragmatic gestures, gestures which embody and perform communicative actions, such as presenting (on the palm up open hand), pointing out (with the precision grip), or rejecting (by holding off or pushing away) arguments [2]. On the contrary, a professor of linguistics, whose goal it is to explain grammatical theory, will use many referential gestures that relate to the abstract grammatical notions, such as verbs, nouns and embedded constituents [20; 21].
Interesting enough, these insights into the manifold functions of co-speech gestures were already discovered way back in Antiquity. At the
height of classical rhetoric Quintilian, late Roman teacher of rhetoric, developed a detailed understanding of the communicative functions of co-speech gestures. Quintilian stands out among other rhetoricians by considering the actio (the bodily performance of a speaker), a major aspect of an orator's performance on stage. In his lectures for a speaker Institutiones Oratoriae [28, p. 92-106] he distinguished gestures relating to parts of speech (beginning, narration, debate, accusation, conviction), gestures expressing speech-acts (accusing, denouncing, promising, advising, praising, affirming, questioning), gestures expressing affective stance and emotions (certainty, sharpness of accusation, emphasis, affirmation, modesty, anxiety, admiration, indignation, fear, remorse, rage, refusal) and gestures which relate to the structure of speech itself (presenting, structuring and emphasizing the speech, enumerating evidences and discriminating different aspects from one another) [22, p. 33-43; 9; 13].
Although the functional variability of gestures is known since Antiquity, contemporary gesture work has not payed much attention to it. Kendon, however, does address,at least implicitly, a functional variability of gestures much along a speech-act systematics. When speaking about «the gestural component of an utterance» that «can be part of its referential content» [14, p.158] he avoids a speech act terminology, but addresses basically the same phenomenon. This becomes clear, when we see how he describes the pragmatic functions of gestures:
«The functions of the gestures in these examples are instances of what will be referred to as pragmatic functions, by which we mean any of the ways in which gestures may relate to features of an utterance's meaning that are not a part of ist referential meaning or propositional content» [14, p. 158]
We agree with Kendon's decision to groundthe classification of gestures in their functional variability. Elsewhere [22; 23], we have proposed a functional classification of gestures that distinguishes gestures based on their communicative function: concrete and abstract referential gestures (referring to concrete or abstract meaning) from performative gestures (enacting and performing a communicative action) discourse gestures (structuring discourse) and modal gestures (qualifying function, for instance a negative assessment) [27]. This typology follows the same basic distinction of gestures expressing referential content from gestures relating to pragmatic meaning as suggested by Kendon.
semantics pragmatics
> concrete referential gestures > performative gestures
> abstract referential gestures > discourse gestures
(metaphoric gestures)
> modal gestures
> deictic gestures > deictic gestures
Figure 1. Typology of gestures based on the semantic or pragmatic function
In the following, the multifunctionality and the potential variability of gestures will be explored on the basis of two quantitative studies: a cross-linguistic investigation of gestures with motion verbs in naturalistic conversations and a priming experiment that investigates the influence of 'literal' versus 'metaphoric' context on co-speech gestures.
Frequency and types of gestures: Motion-verbs in naturalistic conversations
Whether gestures actually play a significant role in language use can be turned into a simple quantitative question: Do speakers gesture all the time? And what about the distribution of different types of gestures? Are gestures 'glued' to the meaning of a concurrent lexical item? The discussion concerning the prepositioning of gestures with regard to their so-called 'lexical affiliates' could point into that direction [15] even if interpreted in a conversation- analytic way, as opening up a projection space [29]. Because, what is being projected, is the semantic meaning of a gesture. The gesture thus foreshadows the semantics of the up-coming lexical affiliate. Thus, already the notion of a lexical affiliate of a gesture presupposes a semantic relation between a gesture and a given lexical item. The same holds for the results of many experimental cross-linguistic studies on the semantics of co-speech gestures that are used with motion event descriptions [7; 8]. These studies have shown that the 'semantics' of gestures varies along with the language specific semantics of motion verb-complexes. Notably all those studies were based on narratives of a Sylvester and Tweetie Cartoon that participants had seen beforehand and were asked to re-tell for somebody not acquainted with the cartoon. The advantage of such an experimental setting is, apart from generating lots of motion event descriptions, of course
the comparability of the data. On the other hand, this type of research does not tell us anything about the frequency and distribution of different types of gestures. Here a naturalistic setting might be interesting to look at. It has the disadvantage of generating lots of different types of motion event descriptions, but on the other hand it allows us to gain some insights into the potential variability of gestures that are used with a particular semantic domain of meaning.
In a cross-linguistic study of Spanish and German speakers we investigated this assumption by looking at gestures that 10 German and 10 Spanish speakers produced when talking about motion-events [22]. The setting was a naturalistic one, participants were acquainted with each other, and were free to talk about whatever they wanted to. The conversations were about 20 minutes long, they were video-recorded and all the motionevents were transcribed and coded. An annotation system was developed to code the semantics of the lexicalization patterns of motion-event complexes (following Talmy's approach [32; 33]) as well as the semantics and pragmatics of the gestures that co-occurred with motion-events.
In a first step, we looked at how often gestures were used when people speak about motion events. All together, we found 381 verb-complexes with a motion event lexicalization pattern, 58 % produced by the Spanish speakers, 42 % by Germans. When we looked at the frequency of hand-gestures as compared to when hands were in a rest-position, we got basically two unexpected results: first, it turned out that most of the time people did not gesture at all, when talking about motion events in a conversational situation (See Fig. 2). To be precise: German's had their hands in a resting position in 62,5 % of the cases, Spanish speakers in 61,1%. In absolute numbers this makes 100 rest-positions for the Germans versus 135 ones for the Spanish speakers and 60 and 86 gestures for the Germans and the Spanish speakers respectively. In relative numbers thus Germans gestured in 37,5% and Spanish speakers in 38,9 % of the time, when using a verb-complex with a lexicalized motion-event (See Fig. 2).
Apart from this surprisingly small number of gestures that speaker's appeared to use with motion-event complexes in our setting, there was a second unexpected result: German's and Spanish did not differ with regard to the frequency of gestures used. This countered a longstanding stereotype of southern Europeans as using gestures much more frequently than northern Europeans would. Elsewhere, we have suggested that the stereotype is much more based on a different use of gesture space than on the amount of gestures used [22]. However, what interests us here
is, on the one hand, the mere fact of speakers not gesturing all the time when talking about motion-events, and, on the other hand, the functional relation between gestures and motion-verb complexes. Put differently, do all speakers use motion gestures when talking about motion-events? We operationalized this functional relation by annotating the types of gestures people were using and distinguished: referential, performative, discursive and deictic gestures (Fig. 3).
Rest position
G estur e
rafemrrtial g. dlicuFiive g.
pcrfannatjvie lift Iii g.
70
52,5
3S
17.5
German Spanish
Ctnsquarc test p^ 0,05
Fig. 2. Comparing German and Spanish speakers' gestures and rest positions when talking about motion-events
70
Î2.5
»
F7.S
L.L
PeyCfllE Spvitcr
Chijqtisre msi p> tj.cs
Fig. 3. Comparing German and Spanish speakers' types of gestures when talking about motion-events
Now, if the functions of gestures (referential, performative, discursive, deictic) were invariably bound to specific lexical units, we would expect to see only referential gestures. Yet, this is not what we found. Clearly, most of the time speakers used referential gestures with motion verbs. Spanish as much as German speakers had a high preference to use gestures that relate semantically to a concurrent verbal expression: 67,4 % of the Spanish and 70 % of the gestures that were spontaneously produced when the participants talked about motion-events actually depicted some aspect of a motion-event (e.g., 58 Spanish and 42 German referential gestures in absolute numbers).Yet apart from referential gestures, speakers of both languages used other kinds of gestures with motion verb-complexes: performative (including modals), discursive, and deictic gestures. In relatively small percentages, but still they did (cf., Fig. 4).
Spanish German
Referential gestures
67,4 % (58)
70,0 % (42)
Performative gestures
11 % (10)
16,7 % (10)
Discursive gestures
15,1 % (13)
5,0 % (3)
Deictic gestures
5,8 % (5)
8,3 % (5)
Fig. 4. Comparing German and Spanish speakers' types of gestures when talking about motion-events (N= 146)
This is an interesting finding, because it shows that even though people appear to use referential gestures predominantly to express meaning that relates semantically to the lexical item they are co-ocurring with, there is no fixed connection between the two. There are cases in which speakers choose to use a different kind of gesture, a performative, discoursive or a deictic one. This is the kind of variability that we refer to in the title of this article. The relation between the verbal and the gestural part of an utterance is one that is constructed by a given speaker. It responds to the interactive affordances of the situation, it displays and sets up a particular focus of attention and foregrounds the semantic or the pragmatic dimensions of an utterance. Here is where we come back to Searle: gestures can foreground what is implicit in a given utterance. By performing a dismissive brushing aside gesture (performative / modal gesture) while describing how somebody walked up the stairs, speakers may gesturally perform a communicative action that qualifies the semantic meaning of the utterance and thus give gestural meta-communicative comment. But even when gestures relate semantically to the verbal expression we find lots of variability. This is what the next section is about.
Gestural conceptualizations: metaphoric and non-metaphoric contexts
In order to gain a closer understanding of how referential gestures relate to the semantics of co-gestured speech, we designed a priming experiment in which gestures were produced either in the context of a literal or a metaphoric use of the same verbal expression(see also [24])1. In this test, the production of a gesture with either metaphoric or literal
1 I would like to thank Sedinha Tessendorf and Silva Ladewig here explicitly. With their creative minds and fun in inventing fourty story pairs they were the vital forces in designing and conducting the experiment.
target sentences was compared. Fourty stories were designed, in which the same expression was presented one time within a context that prompted a metaphoric and another time in a context that suggested a literal reading of the target sentence. Thirty-six subjects listened to the story from a computer and were asked to repeat the last sentence and to produce a gesture with it. The experiment was conducted in German. Here is an example of one target sentence that was realized in a literal and in a metaphoric context «he unpacked» (German: «erpackteaus»).
(1) Literal context
Greece, white beaches a blue ocean. They were finally there. She jumped into the water. He unpacked.
(2) Metaphoric context
Bankrobber Ede was up to his neck in it. Again they had caught him and again only him. He asked himself if this was really a coincidence. The inspector offered him a good deal. He didn't need to think a lot. He unpacked. (e.g., he revealed his contribution in the crime)
We were interested in the following questions: «Do gestures differ when used in literal and metaphoric contexts of the same verbal expression?» Would it make a difference whether somebody would gesture 'unpacking a suitcase' or gesture the metaphoric 'unpacking' of secrets.Would gestures, which refer to the semantics of a literal verbal expression, differ from those that are used metaphorically, e.g. which relate to the source domain of a verbalized metaphoric expression? Would speakers be more likely to use bodily enactments (full body gestures with a higher semantic density) when talking about 'concrete' rather than 'abstract' topics. After all, in this case 'speakers' were depicting a concrete event often a manual action, a bodily action that they probably had experienced many times, such as the unpacking of suitcase in a hotel room. On the other side, when talking about abstract issues metaphorically, such as the revealing of a secret (here metaphorically as 'unpacking' a secret) would their gestures be more abstract? Would the form of the gestures be more reduced, more abstract in a sense? Without much bodily involvement only reduced to hand movements?
The results came with a confirmation and a surprise: With regard to the literal meanings and the concrete contexts of use the results matched our expectations: We found that people were much more likely to use full body enactments (full body gestures) to describe the action. The woman
depicted in Fig. 5 engages in a very vivid bodily enactment of grabbing with both hands into a suitcase that stands in front of her. We see how she moves both hands in a grabbing configuration fairly far down (into the imagined suitcase) and then moves them up and to her right hand side, where she releases the grabbing configuration as-if-dropping a big pullover right next to her. But she does not only move her hands, she also involves her upper body and her head in the movement. The woman is showing an integrated movement of upper body, head, arms and hands. This is what we conceive of as a full body gesture and this the type of gestures that were predominantly used, when asked to repeat the following target sentence from the literal context: «Greece, white beaches a blue ocean. They were finally there. She jumped into the water. He unpacked.»
Fig. 5. A full body gesture performed in a literal context: "He unpacked"1
Most of the time, e.g. 71% of the cases speakers used body gestures when depicting the semantics of a literal verbal expression (cf. Fig. 6). The
1 Drawings courtesy to Mathias Roloff (www.mathiasroloff.de)
surprise was that even in metaphoric contexts, subjects still used full body gestures in more than half of the cases (55% to be precise) (cf. Fig. 6).
literal contexts metaphoric contexts
^ 71 % used body gestures ^ 55 % used body gestures ^ 29 % used hand gestures ^ 45 % used hand gestures Fig. 6. Body gestures versus hand gestures in literal versus metaphoric contexts
This could, be an artifact of the experimental setting. After all, the setting demanded participants to make a gesture with the target sentence. But it is still interesting that in 45% of the cases speakers performed hand-gestures only, when primed to a metaphoric reading of the target sentence: «He unpacked.»
Fig. 7. A hand gesture performed in a metaphoric context: "He unpacked" (e.g., he revealed a secret)
Fig. 7 shows a typical case of a hand-gesture without much body-movement involved. Although the woman is also using both hands to perform an 'upacking' movement, the rest of her body does not move. Moreover, the configuration is unspecific, hand-shape is not articulated as in our 'concrete' example above. Hands are loose and are moved upwards in a circular motion from the wrist and end in a kind of cupped palm-up-open-hand. The form of the hand-movement is in itself significantly more abstract. It is an interesting finding that the metaphorical contexts triggered almost 50% percent of abstract gestures. This could indicate that for those speakers and gestures the metaphoric meaning of the target sentence was more abstract too. For the full-body gestures the opposite would then be true: when making such an elaborate body gesture the speakers display a very specific bodily conceptualization of the verbalized meaning. Put differently, we see in those gestures embodied conceptualizations of literal and metaphoric meanings. Interestingly enough can those bodily conceptualizations be as vivid in metaphoric contexts as in 'literal' ones, which points to another level of variability in the functional relations, we introduced above. Here we deal with cognitive-semantic variation, that is visible and embodied by either hand or body gestures. The kind of gestural display a speaker chooses, displays his or her imagination and conceptualization of the verbalized meaning.
Conclusion
What can we conclude from these two very different settings? First, much of the latter findings could simply be an artifact caused by the experimental setting. Since the participants were instructed to gesture, while repeating the target sentence and this could have 'forced' them to gesture where they would normally not. However, the fact that we did find a systematic variation of full-body gestures and more abstract hand-gestures indicates that also the specific relations between a referential gesture and its semantic context are variable. What we see in those referential gestures are different bodily conceptualizations of semantic content. This means, semantic variation also applies within the group of concrete and abstract referential gestures. Talking about the same event - even with the same words - will not automatically lead to the same gestures in different speakers or even in the same speaker at another time.
On the other hand, the cross-linguistic study presented above also indicates that gesture students must also be prepared to find variations in the type of gestures, when comparing gestures in similar semantic contexts.
Although it is very likely that we will find referential gestures when looking at a specific class of verbs, such as motion-verbs, it is not always the case that concurrent gestures relate semantically to the verb. Sometimes, performative gestures might be used to comment meta-communicately on the utterance or a pointing gestures might be used to direct the attention of a co-participant to an empty cup of tea, waiting to be refilled. All while the speaker talks about driving a car to Spain. Put differently: there is no such thing as a fixed correlation between gestural and verbal meaning. Gesture and speech are partners in the process of utterance, they are two expressive modalities which are tightly correlated and at the same time independent. In a nutshell, using gestures with speech comes with variable cognitive-semantic and pragmatic relations.
REFERENCES
1. Austin J. L. Zur Theorie der Sprechakte (How to do things with words). Stuttgart : Reclam, 1985. - 219 p.
2. Bressem J., Müller C. A repertoire of German recurrent gestures with pragmatic functions // Body - Language - Communication: An international Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.2.) / C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeilland J. Bressem (eds.). - Berlin-Boston : De Gruyter Mouton, 2014. - P. 1575-1591.
3. Calbris G. The semiotics of French gestures. - Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1990. - 236 p.
4. Calbris G. Elements of meaning in gesture. - Amsterdam : John Benjamins, 2011. - 378 p.
5. Cienki A., Müller C. Metaphor and gesture. - Amsterdam : John Benjamins, 2008. - 316 p.
6. Cienki A., Müller C. Metaphor, gesture and thought // The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought / Gibbs, Raymond W. (ed.). - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2008. - P. 484-501.
7. Duncan S. D. Grammatical form and 'thinking-for-speaking' in Mandarin Chinese and English: An analysis based on speech-accompanying gestures. University of Chicago, 1996. - URL: http://mcneilllab.uchicago.edu/pdfs/ susan_duncan/S.Duncan_ dissertation.PDF
8. Duncan S. D. Co-expressivity of speech and gesture: Manner of motion in Spanish, English, and Chinese // Proceedings of the 27th Berkeley Linguistic Society Annual Meeting. - Berkeley, CA : Berkeley University Press, 2006. -P. 353-370.
9. Dutsch D. Towards a grammar of gesture: A comparison between the types of hand movements of the orator and the actor in Quintilian's 'Institutio Oratoria' 3.11.85-124 // Gesture 2. - № 2. - 2002. - P. 259-281.
10. Enfield N. The anatomy of meaning: Speech, gesture, and composite utterances. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2009. - 264 p.
11. Fricke E. Origo, Geste und Raum : Lokaldeixis im Deutschen. - Berlin-N. Y. : Walter de Gruyter, 2007. - 401 p.
12. FrickeE. Grammatik multimodal: Wie Wörter und Gesten zusammenwirken. -Berlin-Boston : De Gruyter - 2012. - 296 p.
13. Graf F. Gestures and conventions: The gestures of Roman actors and orators // A cultural history of gesture / J. Bremmer and H. Roodenburg (eds.). -Cambridge : Polity Press,1994. - P. 36-58.
14. Kendon A. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2004. - 412 p.
15. Krauss R. M., Palmer M.-S., Colasante C. Do conversational hand gestures communicate? // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61, 5, 1991. - P.743-754.
16. Ladewig S. H. Recurrent gestures // Body, Language, Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction / C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill and J. Bressem (eds.). -Berlin-Boston : De Gruyter Mouton, 2014. - P. 1558-1575 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.2.).
17. McNeill D. Hand and mind. What gestures reveal about thought. - Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1996. - 428 p.
18. McNeill D. Language and gesture. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2000. - 420 p.
19. McNeill D. Gesture and thought. - Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2007. - 330 p.
20. Mittelberg I. Metaphor and metonymy in language and gesture: Discoursive evidence for multimodal models of grammar. - N. Y. : Cornell University, 2006. - 324 p.
21. Mittelberg I. Peircean semiotics meets conceptual metaphor: Iconic modes in gestural representations of grammar // Metaphor and Gesture / A. Cienki and C. Müller (eds). - Amsterdam-Philadelphia : John Benjamins. - 2008. -P. 114-154.
22. Müller C. Redebegleitende Gesten: Kulturgeschichte - Theorie - Sprachvergleich. - Berlin : Berlin Verlag, Arno Spitz, 1998. - 314 p.
23. Müller C. Gestures as a medium of expression // Body, Language, Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Interaction / C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill and S. Tessendorf
(eds.). - Berlin-Boston : De Gruyter Mouton, 2013. - P. 202-217. (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.1.).
24. Müller C., Bressem J., Ladewig S. H. Towards a grammar of gesture: A form-based view // Body, Language, Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Interaction / C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill and S. Tessendorf (eds.). - Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2013. - P. 707-733. (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.1.).
25. Müller C., Ladewig S. H., Bressem J. Gestures and speech from a linguistic perspective: a new field and its history // Body, Language, Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Interaction / C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill and S. Tessendorf (eds.). -Berlin-Boston : De Gruyter Mouton, 2013. - P. 55-81. (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.1.).
26. Müller C., Posner R. The semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures. -Berlin : Weidler Buchverlag, 2004. - 262 p.
27. Müller C., Speckmann G. Gestos con una valoración negativa en la conversación cubana // De Signis 3 / E. Chauvel and M. Rector (eds.). - Buenos Aires : Gedisa, 2002. - P. 91-103.
28. Quintilian. Instiutionis oratoriae / Ausbildung des Redners. H. Rahn. -Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988. - P. 485-496.
29. Schegloff E. A. On some gestures' relation to talk // Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis / M. Atkinson, J. Heritage (eds.). -Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1984. - P. 266-296.
30. Searle J. R. Speech Acts. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1969. -214 p.
31. Streeck J. Gesturecraft. The manu-facture of meaning. - Amsterdam-N. Y. : John Benjamins, 2009 - 248 p.
32. Talmy L. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms // Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. III. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon / T. Shopen (ed.). - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1985. - P. 57-149.
33. TalmyL. Lexicalization Patterns: Typologies and Universals [Cognitive Science Program Report 47]. - Berkeley : Universtiy of California, 1987. - P. 1-9.
