Oporto, Portugal April 2000 Conference: Gesture Meaning and Use Robin Allott http://www.percepp.demon.co.uk
Email rmallott@percepp??.demon.co.uk

GESTURAL EQUIVALENCE OF LANGUAGE

BABYSIGNING

ANIMATIONS

PROPOSITIONS

REFERENCES




  • 1. The origin and evolution of language was the result of a transfer of motor patterning from that controlling bodily movement generally to the articulatory organs.
  • 2. There are basic (innate) elementary neural motor programs from which all bodily movements are constructed.
  • 3. These elementary motor programs specifically control all the precise ballistic and targeted movements of the hand and arm. Movements of the hand and arm can be seen to be segmented into elementary movements (when for example there is damage to the cerebellum).
  • 4. The elementary motor programs when redirected to the articulatory organs produce an equivalent set of elementary speech sounds (elementary articulatory programs)
  • 5. Every program controlling movement of the hand and arm can be redirected to form an equivalent articulatory program; similarly every articulatory program can be redirected to produce an equivalent movement of the hand and arm.
  • 6. Every articulatory gesture can be redirected to produce an equivalent gesture of the hand and arm; every gesture of the hand and arm can be redirected to produce an equivalent articulatory gesture.
  • 7. Gestures of the hand and arm in a number of different ways represent, or more precisely, are structured by the contours of perceived objects or of larger bodily actions. A gesture can be structured by a perceived circle or square, by the contour of a tree or a house, by the perceived action of another person or by recall of a particular object or action.
  • 8. Every gesture structured by a perceived object or action or by a recalled object or action can be redirected to produce an equivalent articulatory action.
  • 9. Specific articulatory gestures generate specific phonetic- phonological patternings of utterances.
    
    
  • 10. Speech-sounds, and beyond them aggregations of speech- sounds in words, are equivalent to, homoeomorphic with, gestures structured by perceived or recalled objects or actions.
  • 11. Distinct speech-sounds (consonants and vowels) are equivalent to, homeomorphic with, distinct positions and movements of the hand and arm. These equivalences can be observed and specified.
  • 12. Specific aggregations of speech-sounds, words, can be correlated with specific gestures structured by perceived or recalled objects or actions. These equivalences can be observed and specified.
  • 13. How does the perceiver\receiver understand speech?
  • 14. How does the perceiver\receiver understand gesture?
  • 15. The chameleon theory of speech\gesture perception.
    
    
    
    


    ANIMATIONS


     Function word gestures
     Noun form gestures
     Verb form gestures
     Speech-sound/gesture deictic words: English Japanese French
     Speech-sound/gesture elements: system
     Speech-sound/gesture groups:

    Vowel Line
    Projective
    Main Consonantal
    Lateral
    Circular


    BABYSIGNING

    Acredolo, Linda and Susan Goodwyn. 2000. [Forthcoming] How to Talk to Your Baby before Your Baby Can Talk. [http://www.babysigns.com]

    Garcia, Joseph. 1999. Sign with your Baby. Seattle: Northlight & Stratton Kehl.

    ITV Tonight Programme: Signing Babies


    NOTES: SUPPORTING MATERIAL

    MOTOR THEORY

    The motor theory is a theory of the origin and functioning of language. The theory is that the structures of language (phonological, lexical and syntactic) were derived from and modelled on the pre-existing complex neural systems which had evolved for the control of body movement. Motor control at the neural level requires pre-set elementary units of action which can be integrated into more extended patterns of bodily action - neural motor programs. Speech is essentially a motor activity (a stream of articulatory gestures). Language made use of the elementary pre-set units of motor action to produce equivalent phonological units (phonemic categories). The neural programs for individual words were constructed from the elementary units in the same way as motor programs for bodily action. The syntactic processes and structures of language were modelled on the motor 'syntax'. No separate theory is needed for the origin and functioning of gesture which is itself a motor activity controlled by the same cerebral motor control systems governing all bodily movement.


    Deacon, Terrence W. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: Norton

    p. 237 "Humans have a degree of voluntary motor control over the sound produced in the larynx that surpasses any other vocal species. Indeed, this degree of voluntary control is otherwise found only in motor systems controlled by cerebral cortical and cerebellar motor pathways projecting ultimately to skeletal muscles.... One way or another, the human larynx must be controlled from higher brain systems involved in skeletal muscle control"

    "linguistic structure may emerge from, and may even be viewed as, a special case of motoric structure, the structure of action." (Studdert-Kennedy 1983: 5)

    " the motoric and perceptual mechanisms were in place long before language entered the stage. ... how the newcomers, speech and language, could acquire some of their properties by adapting to the phylogenetically older structures rather than the other way round." (Lindblom 1991: 22)

    "The organizational characteristics of speech as a motor control system are fundamentally similar to other sequential motor actions and are felt to involve a limited number of general sensorimotor control processes" (Gracco 1990: 21)

    "the networks for speech in the brain and in the model could be organised in the same way as those organising body movements and behaviour. ... developments of the motor and memory systems could lead to the development of language." (Kien 1992: 252)


    MOTOR PROGRAMS

    Berthoz, Alain. 1997. Le Sens du Mouvement. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob

    p. 24 "Un des concepts proposés depuis longtemps pour relier perception, action et mémoire est celui du schème moteur. Selon Schmidt, des structures de mouvement . . . sont stockées par le cerveau.

    p. 152 "ces méthodes ont permis de constater que tous les mouvements naturels sont organisés en segments discrets.

    p. 160 "Cette theorie [Viviani and Flash] suppose donc à la fois que le systéme de contrôle moteur dispose d'un plan spatial avant même le début du mouvement, ce qui rejoint l'hypothèse de la théorie du programme moteur

    p. 176 "Le mouvement est donc organisé à partir d'un répertoire de synergies qui compose autant d'actes possibles. ... une bibliothèque de mouvements facilement déclenchables

    p. 178 "pour simuler intérieurement le mouvement, il suffira d'utiliser les groupements de neurones ainsi constitués puisqu'ils sont le miroir neural de l'action. <

    p. 294 Rizzolatti et ses collègues . . . D'autres équipes comme celle de Sakata (1995) au Japon ont aussi trouvé des neurones dans le cortex pariétal qui codent des comportements moteurs élémentaires. (Berthoz)

    "A Vocabulary of Motor Acts. ... We propose that in inferior area 6 there is a vocabulary of elementary motor acts coded at the single neuron level. This vocabulary is essentially related to arm-mouth movements." (Rizzolatti and Gentilucci 1988: 281)

    "Movement plans may be complex in the sense of being composed of separable component tasks. These components may be coordinated at some level by the voluntary motor system, in order to combine tasks into appropriate actions ." (Haggard 1991: 153)


    "Both the effects of simplifying the dynamics computation and the limitations of feedback control in biological arms ... strongly suggest that there must exist substantially correct preprograms in order for humans to make accurate fast arm movements."(Hollerbach 1985: 140)

    Bernstein concluded that the action units could not be specific contractions and extensions of individual muscles. In motor programs "we cannot discover any other determining factor than the image or representation of the result of the action" (Bernstein 1967: 49).


    MOTOR PROGRAM EQUIVALENCE

    p. 246 "On désigne par 'équivalence motrice' une propriété simple et remarquable du cerveau: celle qui permet de faire le même mouvement avec des effecteurs très différents. Par exemple, je peux écrire le lettre A avec le main, ou le pied, ou même la bouche; je peux même dessiner un A en me promenant sur le plage! (Berthoz)

    "For many years we have known in a general way that speech and limb movements are related" (Munhall 1994: 174 reviewing Hammond: Cerebral control of speech and limb movements 1990) .

    "A fundamental premise in the present model [of speech motor control] is that there are characteristic patterns stored in the nervous system" (Gracco 1992: 38)

    deeply embedded within the speech process can be manual actions and the schemas of representation which they support" (McNeill 1981: 205).

    "comparing findings on the motor organisation of speech with the organization of voluntary movements about the elbow ...We have found that the kinematic patterns for movements of the tongue dorsum were similar to those of voluntary flexion-extension movements about the elbow" (Ostry and Cooke 1987: 223).

    "the task dynamic model we are using for speech was exactly the model used for controlling arm movements, with the articulators of the vocal tract simply substituted for those of the arm." (Browman and Goldstein 1991: 314)

    "such gestures not only can characterize the movements of the speech articulators but also can act as phonological primitives" (Browman and Goldstein 1991: 313)


    GESTURE AND SPEECH AS LINKED PROCESSES

    It seems that the speech-accompanying movement is produced along with the speech as if the speech production process is manifested in two forms of activity simultaneously - in the vocal organs and also in bodily movement, particularly in movements of the hands and arms." (Kendon 1972: 205)

    Haskins Speech Laboratories: "GESTURES Articulatory phonology takes seriously the view that the units of speech production are actions, and therefore that (1) they are dynamic, not static.

    This approach merges a phonological model based on gestural structures (Browman & Goldstein, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992) with an approach called task dynamics (see below) that characterizes speech gestures as coordinated patterns of goal-directed articulator movements. At the heart of both of these approaches is the notion of a gesture, which is considered in this context to be the formation of a constriction in the vocal tract by the organized activity of an articulator or set of articulators. (Tatham 1996)

    Löfqvist, A. (1990). Speech as audible gestures. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modelling. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 289-322.


    GESTURE CATEGORIES

    "While people talk, they also use their hands. 'illustrative gestures' are used to indicate shapes, sizes, directions and to point, for example to describe a spiral staircase. .. Where illustrative gestures are similar in form to their reference, emblems [gestures with arbitrary meanings] usually are not" (Argyle 1987: 63)

    A gesture may be an indication. This is perhaps not so much resemblance as a variant of the action-gesture. The most rudimentary gesture is to point to the object referred to or more particularly to the feature of the body referred to. So the gesture for me is simply the hand pointing to the chest (or touching it in emphatic speech). A gesture for the ear is to point to or touch the ear - and so on.

    "We respond to gestures with an extreme alertness and, one might almost say, in accordance with an elaborate and secret code that is written nowhere, known by none and understood by all." (Sapir quoted by Plutchik 1980: 269)

    "Iconic gestures appear to be images of concepts and imply the existence of schemas which produce them" (McNeill 1981: 203)


    A SINGLE SYSTEM

    The essential idea in the detailed development of the hypothesis of phonological/semantic equivalence is that the gross muscular expression of the word/articulatory pattern can be observed and analysed in the form of gesture and that complex gestures can be broken down into gestural elements associated with particular sound-elements

    "we should regard the gesture and the spoken utterance as different sides of a single underlying mental process..... I credit the discovery that there is a unity of speech and gesture to Adam Kendon ... gesture and language are one system" (McNeill 1992: 1-2)

    "speech and gesture arise as interacting elements of a single system" (McNeill 1987: 503

    "The central thesis is that the visual system and the motor system are functionally inseparable ... they are components of a unified perceptuo-motor system, which is itself a component of the organism-environment system." (Lee 1980: 281)

    Visually directed action implies continuous transformation of incoming visual stimuli into motor commands." (Jeannerod 1986: 41)

    "It would seem that our perception of objects, and particularly of their spatial relations, is determined in part by the laws governing the movements of the eye" (Davson 1972)


    ARTICULATORY PHONOLOGY

    "In articulatory phonology, the basic units of phonological contrast are gestures ... Utterances are modeled as organized patterns ... of gestures, in which gestural units may overlap in time. The phonological structures defined in this way provide a set of articulatorily based natural classes" (Browman and Goldstein 1992: 155)

    "we show that such gestures not only can characterize the movements of the speech articulators but also can act as phonological primitives" (Browman and Goldstein 1990: 313)


    GESTURE >> WORD : WORD >> GESTURE

    The same technique (essentially the ideomotor process described by William James) can be applied to transfer the articulatory 'gestures', the motor programs that produce the range of speech sounds.

    Catford has usefully described "the technique of silent practice of sounds". Auditory sensations, he says, mask the proprioceptive sensations, that is, the kinesthetic awareness of the articulatory process. "To get at the latter, you have to eliminate the auditory sensations." (Catford 1991: 176)

    To transfer the articulatory 'gesture' for a speech sound to produce a change in the position or movement of the hand and arm, the first step is to use the Catford technique to separate the sound from the motor aspect of the articulation. Without uttering the sound, "image" the production of the speech sound. Then in the same way as signing one's name can be transferred to the foot, so with a shift of attention we transfer the motor program for the speech sound to the hand and arm. We should then observe a movement or position of the hand and arm which is structurally related to the articulatory 'gesture'.


    MIRROR NEURONS

    p.17 [from Janet] "Quand nous percevons . . . un fauteuil . . . nous avons déjà en nous l'acte caractéristique du fauteuil, ce que nous avons appelé un schème perceptif, ici l'acte de nous asseoir d'une manière particulière dans ce fauteuil". (Berthoz)

    p. 26/27 "LE NEURONE MIROIR Une vérification de l'idée que le cerveau contient dans son organisation neuronale des schèmes constituant de véritables actes comportmentaux a été récemment apportée par Rizzolatti . . . ces neurones sont activés soit lorsque l'animale fait le geste, soit lorsqu'il le voit faire.(bERTHOZ)

    Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V. Resonance behaviors and mirror neurons. Arch Ital Biol 1999 May;137(2-3):85-100

    "a particular class of premotor neurons, the "mirror" neurons. With this term we define neurons that discharge both when the monkey makes a particular action and when it observes another individual (monkey or human) making a similar action.

    "Transcranial magnetic stimulation and positron emission tomography (PET) experiments suggest that a mirror system for gesture recognition also exists in humans and includes Broca's area. "

    "such an observation/execution matching system provides a necessary bridge from'doing' to'communicating',as the link between actor and observer becomes a link between the sender and the receiver of each message."

    Words in origin are natural because they carry in their structure either a direct representation of a percept or action or an indirect clue or indication of the percept or action to which the word relates.

    Words are formed from speech sounds, each of which is the product of an elementary motor program, an articulatory 'gesture'. For each articulatory 'gesture' there is a corresponding movement of position of the hand and arm.


    PERCEPTION AND PRODUCTION

    "in the non-human case ... evidence that production and perception of communicative signals have genetic and neurobiological roots in common. Surely it is reasonable to assume a similar arrangement for phonetic communication in humans. ... production and perception are simply different faces of the same module, sharing a common set of (gestural) primitives and, to the extent possible, a common set of processes." (Liberman 1991: 446)

    "This association between motor movements and phoneme identification is strong and unique direct evidence for a motor model of speech perception" ... One population [of neurons] ... seemed to have a specific pattern of activity each time a specific word was perceived, a pattern that also seemed to be present with production of that word " (Ojemann 1991: 225, 122)


    MOTOR IMITATION

    p. 15 "La théorie motrice de la perception" (Berthoz)

    "We respond to gestures with an extreme alertness and, one might almost say, in accordance with an elaborate and secret code that is written nowhere, known by none and understood by all." (Sapir quoted by Plutchik 1980: 269)

    "Newborn infants ranging in age from 0.7 to 71 hours old were tested for their ability to imitate 2 adult facial gestures: mouth opening and tongue protrusion. ... The results showed that newborn infants can imitate both adult displays. 3 possible mechanisms underlying the early imitative behavior are suggested ... ... It is argued that the data favor the third account [active intermodal matching]." (Meltzoff and Moore 1983: 702)

    "Although infants ... do learn by imitation ... the structural foundations for the imitative movements cannot be learned. It is necessary to assume an innate structure that at least partly matches the structure of the adult models to explain both imitation and more complex reciprocal or complementary interactions which are characteristic of communication between child and adult from immediately after birth." ... "The neural basis for empathic response would underlie imitation in both directions" (Trevarthen 1984: 253, 256)


    THE CHAMELEON THEORY OF PERCEPTION

    The chameleon theory of speech\gesture perception

    "a great capacity for imitating, that is, translating perceived into performed movements. This may indeed have been one of the most important steps in the development of the brain." (Hayek 1973: 241)

    If you see someone yawning, you will probably yawn. If you think about (visualise or form a mental image of yourself) yawning, you will probably yawn.

    The changes in brain-patterning from seeing are translated into specific motor-patterning which produces the infant's re- presentation of the adult facial movement. There is a transduction of seen visual patterning into a corresponding motor-patterning of the infant's face.

    Perception appears to be a process similar to that by which the chameleon changes its bodily state to match its background. Perception (on the chameleon theory) is internal ordering guided by external ordering. The perception of speech and the perception of gesture are aspects of this chameleon- process.

    Ideomotor action is the reverse process. Both stem from the integration of the motor system and perception.


    REFERENCES

    • Acredolo, Linda and Susan Goodwyn. 2000. Baby Signs: How to Talk to Your Baby before Your Baby Can Talk. London: Vermilion.
    • Allott, Robin 1989. The Motor Theory of Language Origin. Lewes: Book Guild.
    • Allott, Robin 1992. The Motor Theory of Language: Origin and Function. In Language Origin: A Multidisciplinary Approach ed. by Jan Wind et al. NATO ASI. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    • Argyle, Michael. 1987. In Blakemore, Colin and Susan Greenfield eds. Mindwaves: Thoughts on Intelligence, Identity and Consciousness. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
    • Bernstein, N. 1967. The Coordination and regulation of Movements. Oxford: Pergamon.
    • Berthoz, Alain. 1997. Le Sens du Mouvement. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob
    • Browman, Catherine and Louis Goldstein. 1989. Gestural Structures and Phonological Patterns. Status Report on Speech Research SR-97/98 pp. 1-23. NewHaven, Conn.:Haskins Laboratories.
    • Browman, Catherine and Louis Goldstein. 1991. Gestural Structures: Distinctiveness, Phonological Processes, and Historical Change. In Modularity and the Motor Theory of Speech Perception ed. by Mattingly, Ignatius M. and Michael Studdert-Kennedy, pp. 313-338.
    • Browman, Catherine P. and Louis Goldstein. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49: 155-180.
    • Catford, J.C. 1991. Panel Discussion: The Motor Theory Alternative Accounts. In Modularity and the Motor Theory Speech Perception ed. by Mattingly, Ignatius M. and Studdert-Kennedy, p. 176
    • Davson, H. 1976. The Eye: Visual function in man. London: Academic Press.
    • Deacon, Terrence W. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: Norton
    • Garcia, Joseph. 1999. Sign with your Baby. Seattle: Northlight & Stratton Kehl.
    • Gopnik, Alison, Andrew N. Meltzoff & Patricia K. Kuhl. 1999. The Scientist in the Crib: Minds, Brains, and How Children Learn. New York: William Morrow.
    • Gracco, Vincent. 1990. Characteristics of speech as a motor control system. In Hammond, Geoffrey R. ed. 1990. Cerebral Control of Speech and Limb Movements, pp. 3-28
    • Gracco, Vincent L. 1992. Characteristics of speech as a motor control system. SR- 109 110: 13-26. Newhaven, Conn: Haskins Laboratories
    • Haggard, Patricia. 1991. Task coordination in human prehensive behavior. Status Report on Speech Research. SR - 105/106, pp. 153-172. Newhaven, Conn: Haskins Laboratories.
    • Hayek, F.A. 1978 New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    • Hollerbach, J.M. 1985. Computers, brains and the control of movement. In The motor system in neurobiology ed. by E.V.Evarts, S.P. Wise and D. Bousfield, 140-146. Amsterdam: Elsevier
    • James W. 1890. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Dover Reprint 1950.
    • Jeannerod, M. 1986. Mechanisms of visuomotor coordination: A study in normal and brain-damaged subjects. Neuropsychologia. 24: 41-78
    • Kendon, Adam. 1972. Some Relationships between Body Motion and Speech: An Analysis of one example. In Siegman, Aron Wolfe and Benjamin Pope eds. Studies in Dyadic Communication, pp. 177-210. New York: Pergamon.
    • Kien, Jenny. 1992. Remembering and planning: A neuronal network model for the selection of behaviour and its development for use in human language. In K. Haefner(ed.) Evolution of Information Processing Systems. Berlin: Springer, pp. 229-256.
    • Kuhl, Patricia K. and Andrew N. Meltzoff. 1988. Speech as an intermodal object of perception.
    • Lee, D.N. 1980. Visuo-motor co-ordination in space-time. In Tutorials in Motor Behavior ed. by G.E. Stelmach and J. Requin, 281-296. Amsterdam: North Holland
    • Liberman, Alvin M. 1991. Afterthoughts on Modularity and the Motor Theory. In Modularity and the Motor Theory of Speech Perception ed. by Mattingly, Ignatius M. and Michael Studdert-Kennedy, pp. 443-446.
    • Liberman, A.M. and I.G. Mattingly. 1985. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21: 1-36.
    • Lindblom, Bjorn. 1991. The Status of Phonetic Gestures. In Modularity and the Motor Theory of Speech Perception ed. by Mattingly, Ignatius M. and Michael Studdert-Kennedy, pp. 7-24
    • Löfqvist, A. 1990. Speech as audible gestures. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modelling. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
    • McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • McNeill, D. 1979. The Conceptual Basis of Language. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
    • McNeill, D. 1981. Action, thought and language. Cognition 10: 201-208
    • McNeill, D. 1987. So you do think gestures are non-verbal!. Psychol. Rev. 94: 499-504.
    • McNeill, David, Elena T. Levy and Laura L. Pedelty. 1990. Speech and Gesture. In Hammond, Geoffrey R. ed. Cerebral Control of Speech and Limb Movements, pp. 203-256.
    • Meltzoff, Andrew N. and M. Keith Moore. 1977. Imitation of Facial and Manual Gestures by Human Neonates. Science 198: 75-78.
    • Meltzoff, Andrew N. and M. Keith Moore. 1983. Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development 54: 702-709..
    • Munhall, G. 1994. Review of Hammond, Geoffrey R. ed. 1990. Cerebral Control of Speech and Limb Movements. Brain and Language 46: 174-177.
    • Ojemann, G.A. 1991. Cortical Organisation of Language and Verbal Memory Based on Intraoperative Investigation.In Progress in Sensory Physiology 12 ed. D. Ottoson, pp. 193-230. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
    • Ostry, D.J. and J.D. Cooke. 1987. Kinematic Patterns in Speech and Limb Movements.In Keller, E. and M. Gopnik eds. Motor and Sensory Processes of Language, pp. 223-235. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
    • Plutchik, Robert. 1980. Emotion: A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis. New York: Harper and Row.
    • Rizzolatti, G. and M. Gentilucci. 1988. Motor and Visual-Motor Functions of the Premotor Cortex. In Rakic, P. and W. Singer. eds. 1988. Neurobiology of the Neocortex. Dahlem Workshop Reports. Chichester: John Wiley.
    • Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V. 1999. Resonance behaviors and mirror neurons. Arch Ital Biol 1999 May;137(2-3)
    • Studdert-Kennedy, M. ed. 1983. Psychobiology of Language Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
    • Tatham, Mark. 1996. Articulatory phonology, task dynamics and computational adequacy. Procs. Institute of Acoustics 18.
    • Trevarthen, C. 1984. How control of movement develops. In Whiting, H.T.A. ed. Human Motor Actions: Bernstein Reassessed, pp. 223-261. Amsterdam: North-Holland.