Gestures and Second Language Acquisition:

(1)

Gestures and Second Language Acquisition:

What gestures reveal about nativeness in a second language

LISA THARI HOOIJSCHUUR s1912348

MA Thesis

Department of Applied Linguistics Faculty of Liberal Arts

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Supervisor:

Dr. N. H. Hilton

Second reader:

Dr. H. Loerts

Word count: 14086 July 1, 2014

(2)

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 2

ABSTRACT ... 3

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ... 4

CHAPTER 2: GESTURES ... 6

2.1 GESTURE DEFINITION...6

2.2 GESTURE CATEGORIZATION...8

2.3 THE CONNECTION BETWEEN GESTURES AND SPEECH...11

CHAPTER 3: CROSS-CULTURAL AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC GESTURE DIFFERENCES...14

3.1 INTRODUCTION...14

3.2 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES...14

3.3 LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES...16

CHAPTER 4: NATIVENESS...19

4.2 DIFFERENT VIEWS REGARDING MATURATIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON SLA...20

4.3 GESTURAL L2 ATTAINMENT...22

4.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS...25

CHAPTER 5: METHODOLOGY...26

5.1 EXPERIMENT...26

5.2 RECORDINGS...26

5.2.1 Participants...26

5.2.2 Materials...27

5.2.3 Procedure ...27

5.3 ANALYZING GESTURES...28

5.4 THE VISUAL EXPERIMENT...29

5.4.1 Scene selection ...29

5.4.2 Materials and procedure ...29

5.4.3 Participants...30

5.4.4 Analysis ...30

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS...32

6.2 GESTURE ANALYSIS...32

6.3 SURVEY RESPONSES...36

6.3.1 Foreign gesture rating ...36

6.3.2 Accuracy of the judges...36

CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION...39

7.1 GESTURE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DUTCH AND ENGLISH...39

7.2 SURVEY RESPONSES...41

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION...45

REFERENCES...46

APPENDICES ...51

APPENDIX 1: POWERPOINT SCREENSHOTS OF THE CARTOON...51

APPENDIX 2: SURVEY RESULTS...55

(3)

Acknowledgements

This thesis would not have been possible without the help and support of a number of people. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Nanna Hilton, for guiding me in the process of writing this thesis, for supporting and encouraging me, and for providing intellectual insights. Secondly, Dr. Hanneke Loerts, for always having time to answer questions and helping me with deciding on the statistical analysis, Steven Gilbers and Nienke Hoeksema for helping with the statistics and proofreading my thesis, Prof. Dr. Kees de Bot, for introducing me to the field of gestures and giving me the idea for the topic, Dr. Wander Lowie, and Dr. Remco Knooihuizen for helping me with questions I had, and finding participants for the experiment. Furthermore, a major thanks goes out to the participants of the study, both the 15 who narrated the story and the 22 anonymous participants who filled in the questionnaire, and Maria Markakis, for being the interlocutor for all 15 narrative sessions. Finally, I would like to say thanks to my parents, for supporting and encouraging me throughout the entire process, and to all my fellow students, with special thanks to Quyên Vu, David Peña Cita, and Maria Markakis, for sharing the experience, and making study sessions more fun and never lonely.

(4)

Abstract

Despite the fact that gestures are increasingly seen as part of language by scholars, they have usually not been included in second language acquisition (SLA) studies. Especially studies regarding the existence of a possible critical period for SLA, focusing on ultimate attainment and appearing native have so far excluded gestures. This thesis investigates whether it is possible for native speakers of British English to identify the nativeness of Dutch and English speakers of English, solely based on the gestures they use. Gestures used in narratives by a group of near-‐native Dutch L2 speakers of English, native speakers of English, and a control group of low proficient Dutch L2 speakers of English (all male) were analyzed and, simultaneously, rated by native speakers of English on their nativeness. The results revealed no clear differences between the gestures of the three groups regarding amount, types, and placement, and, more surprisingly, no significant differences between the ratings of the three groups when it came to nativeness. The results indicate that it is not possible to judge nativeness solely based on gestures. However, the male raters did reveal to be significantly more accurate in their ratings than the females.

(5)

Chapter 1: Introduction

“He ordered three glasses (she holds up three fingers, index to pinky). We order, three glasses (she holds up three fingers, thumb to index). That’s the German three. The other is odd. Germans would, and did notice it.”

(Inglorious Bastards, Universal Pictures, 2009)

Whenever speech production takes place, this is usually accompanied by a lot of movement of the speaker. This movement occurs largely unconsciously, yet, it attributes to the message the speaker is trying to convey (McNeill, 1992; 2005). As the quote from the movie Inglorious Bastards (Tarantino, 2009) shows, this movement can be highly dependent on culture and give away whether a speaker belongs to a certain language culture or not. In the field of gesture studies, there is a growing body of work focusing on cultural and linguistic differences in the gesture use between speakers of different languages, with most having a focus on more or less standardized gestures (emblems), such as the before mentioned example of finger counting (e.g. Hauge, 2000; Jungheim, 1991; Mohan & Helmer, 1988). Furthermore, other studies have focused on a specific part of speech-‐accompanying gestures (or gesticulation), which co-‐occurs with the expression of motion events (e.g. Kellerman & Van Hoof, 2003; Özyürek, 2002; Stam, 1998). However, a recent study by Alferink (2008) has revealed that it also appears to be possible for people to distinguish language cultures solely based on a speaker’s gesture use as a whole. This language recognition appears to occur, contrary to the three-‐finger example, mostly intuitively. Simultaneously, in the field of second language acquisition (SLA), a debate regarding the possible existence of a critical period for the acquisition of language is ever ongoing. Despite an increasing number of studies that include gestures in their SLA studies, seeing it as part of the target language that can be acquired and as a mean to gain insights into L2 acquisition processes (Gullberg, 2006a), gestures have never been included in the critical period debate, in which the focus solely lies on spoken and written language.

In the current thesis, narratives by advanced, near-‐native, Dutch learners of British English (BrE), native speakers of BrE, and a control group of Dutch speakers of English with low/intermediate proficiency will be judged by native speaker of BrE on their nativeness, solely based on the accompanying gestures, to see whether gestures alone can be enough to determine nativeness. In the following three chapters, the

(6)

theoretical background of the study will be provided. First, general information regarding gestures, their definition, categorization, and connection to speech and language will be provided in Chapter 2. Subsequently, Chapter 3 will focus on cross-‐

cultural and –linguistic differences between gestures accompanying different languages, and, finally, the debate regarding the possibility of a second language (L2) learner to appear native in the target language and a possible critical period for L2 acquisition is discussed and linked to gestures (Chapter 4). Chapter 5 describes the methodology of the current study, and is followed by the results (Chapter 6), the discussion of these results (Chapter 7), and conclusions that can be drawn from them (Chapter 8).

(7)

Chapter 2: Gestures

2.1 Gesture definition

Despite the fact that gestures have been a popular topic of research for centuries (see Kendon, 2004 for an overview), there is still disagreement between scholars regarding a clear definition of what gestures are. While certain scholars define gestures as being all movement involved while speaking (Beattie & Shovelton, 2004), others only include fixed gestures that have become standardized into their definition (Archer, 1997).

Yoshioka (2005) emphasizes the importance of the theoretical framework on which the study is based when deciding on a definition of gesture. More recently, in the last half of a century, a field of gesture studies has emerged, focusing on gestures in relation to speech rather than placing it in the larger context of all non-‐verbal communication; in other words, co-‐speech gestures. In this field, a gesture is generally defined as the

“movement of hand and arms that we see when people talk” (McNeill, 1992, p. 1).

Overall, from this point of view, six salient properties of gestures can be distinguished (Alferink, 2008): gestures (1) are spontaneous, everyday occurrences, (2) are restricted to arms, hands, and fingers, (3) show communicative intent, (4) are actions interpreted by the listener as part of what is being said, (5) are synchronized with linguistic units, and (6) are linked to the accompanying speech, which is noticeable in aphasia and language development in children. Firstly, despite the fact that almost always when speech production takes place there appears to be some form of movement, gesturing occurs largely unwittingly (Kendon, 2004). Usually, it occurs habitually and without direct intention from the speaker.

Secondly, most studies on gestures, especially those focusing on the connection between cognitive models and gestures, solely focus on hand and arm movement.

Nevertheless, depending on the situation and languages involved in the research, other body parts might be interesting to include; for example, Wilkins (2003) revealed that although pointing may be a universal action, the use of the index finger is not; the Arrernte-‐tribe can use either their gaze, lips, or hands to point, depending on the visibility of the referent, the formality of the situation, and the level of secrecy. Following McNeill (1992), it was decided for the current study to restrict the definition of gestures to arms, hands, and fingers.

Another salient property of gestures is the fact that they show communicative intent, and therefore are linguistically meaningful, for they contribute to the message

(8)

the speaker is trying to convey. Gestures are often used to promote understanding or to prevent ambiguity (Gullberg, 2010). Kendon (2004) provides an overview of ways in which “gestures, as used in partnership with speech, participate in the construction of the utterance’s meaning” (p. 60). He gives examples of cases in which gestures provide the context in which the utterance is to be interpreted, add additional components of either substantive or abstract (implied by what is being said) denotation, or have pragmatic functions of marking the speaker’s attitude. However, for certain movements it is difficult to indicate whether there is a linguistic intent or not. For example scratching of the head could simply signify an itch, but in certain cultures it is used to convey the message of thinking. While the former does not show communicative intent, and therefore would not be seen as a gesture, the latter instance of the same movement does, communicating towards the listener to wait with a response, for the speaker is thinking. Although, in context, the interpretation of this movement is relatively distinct, there are other instances in which this is less evident (Alferink, 2008).

Furthermore, not only the intention of the speaker is important in defining gestures, but also the interpretation by the listener (Kendon, 1997). In other words, the listener perceives and understands the linguistically motivated movements and sees them as an essential part of the conversation. Subsequently this also entails that the speaker is held accountable for the message the gestures convey. A similar problem to the previous difficulty in assessing intent arises with this condition: it is difficult to register perception. With the exception of some specific cases, for the most part, no direct reference to produced gestures will be made in communication, leaving it unknown whether the listeners indeed correctly perceived the gesture.

The fifth salient property Alferink (2008) mentions was taken from McNeill (1985), where he states that gestures are “synchronized with linguistic units” (p. 351).

Although, for a long time, gesture and language were seen as different concepts, cognitive theories used in the field of gesture studies (cf. Gullberg, 2010; Kendon, 2000;

2004; McNeill, 1992; 2000a; 2005) regard the organizations of speech and gestures as very closely related. According to Kendon (2000), this is highly dependent on the definition of language, for if language were to be defined as spoken interaction, gestures cannot be included, while if a more abstract definition in which the medium of interaction is not defining, they can. With the rise of studies on primary sign languages also came the rejection of the former definition. Ever since, “[g]estures, speech and language are increasingly seen as linked in production, comprehension, and

(9)

development, the modalities forming an ‘integrated’ system which is planned and processed together” (Gullberg, 2010, p. 78, emphasis in original). This aspect will be discussed in more detail in section 2.3.

Finally, connected to the previous property of gestures, McNeill (1985) mentions that gestures occurring together with speech are movements that appear to “dissolve like speech in aphasia, and develop together with speech in children” (p. 351), again emphasizing the intrinsic link between speech and gesture. In other words, the development of gesture use and comprehension in children seems to follow a similar path as their speech development, and moreover, are similarly affected by aphasia. For the following theoretical discussion, this definition of gestures, encompassing these six properties, will be employed, making it possible to focus on co-‐speech gestures.

2.2 Gesture categorization

After defining gestures, a categorization can and should be made, because not all gestures produced are the same or even similar. Through the years, different criteria have been used to classify gestures (see Kendon, 2004). The classification used in contemporary research is based on Kendon (1988), who distinguished four different kinds of gestures, which were placed along a continuum called Kendon’s continuum (McNeill, 1992). However, McNeill (2005) later on altered his original view, stating that we should not think of gestures in absolute categories, but rather in terms of dimensions; gestures should be described as possessing particular features from each classification.

The first category on the continuum is gesticulations, which refers to gestures whose meanings are related to the accompanying speech, and for this reason are usually not interpretable without speech. This type of gesture is the one that occurs most frequently in everyday use, usually without awareness (McNeill, 2005). The second category is pantomime, which, although Yoshioka (2005) stated might occur simultaneously with speech, is usually defined as “a gesture or sequence of gestures conveying a narrative line, with a story to tell, produced without speech” (McNeill, 2005, p. 5). An example of a pantomime would be the response of twirling the index finger in the air, when asked what a vortex is. Following on the continuum are emblems, which are signs that have a fixed meaning, and a slight alteration will change, if not delete, the meaning (McNeill, 1992). This condition of well-‐formedness allows emblems to be seen as lexical items. Context is not required for emblems to be understood, and therefore they do not require accompanying speech, although they do sometimes occur together.

(10)

The final category consists of sign languages, which, according to Kendon (2004), can be distinguished into two different types, primary and alternate sign languages. The first type includes languages used by communities of deaf people to communicate, and are fully-‐fledged languages with each its own linguistic rules and systems. Contrary, alternate sign languages are not full-‐fledges languages, but rather elaborate gestural communication system, or kinesic codes, with “restricted uses and varying degree of elaboration” (Pfau, 2012, p. 528). These secondary sign languages are used by hearing societies rather than deaf people, and only in certain situations. For example, the Sawmill Sign Language, a sign language developed in an extremely noisy work environment in which coworkers had to communicate in order to smoothly conduct their work tasks (see Pfau for the lexicon and structure of this sign language), is one such secondary sign language.

Initially, hand and arm movements were identified on the basis of two continua:

the relationship to speech and the conventionality (McNeill, 1992). McNeill (2000a) reviewed the two continua and added two more, the relationship to linguistic properties and the semiotic content. The relationship between gesture and speech is the most concrete dimension and is visualized in Table 2.1. A gradual allowance of accompanied speech is revealed, with obligatory presence of speech for gesticulation, to obligatory absence for both pantomime and sign languages.¹ Connected to this is the second continuum, reflecting on the relationship to linguistic properties (Table 2.2), or in other words whether there is a system to which the movements have to adhere considering well-‐formedness. From this perspective, pantomime and emblems are switched, for linguistic properties in pantomime are absent, placing it closer to gesticulations than emblems, where some linguistic properties are present. Comparing these two continua reveals that when “the vocal modality has linguistic system properties, gesture […] does not take on these properties. And, when it does not, speech tends to be an obligatory presence with the gesture” (McNeill, 2000a, p. 4, emphasis in original), suggesting that gestures and speech are combined in one system. The third continuum reflects on the degree of a socially constituted standard, or convention, and is visualized in Table 2.3.

The final continuum concerns the character of semiosis (Table 2.4). The terms global and segmented refer to direction of the meaning determination. The former entails a

1 Despite the fact that sign language can be accompanied by speech, this has a disruptive effect on both the gestures and the speech production (Nelson, Loncke & Camarata,

(11)

downward direction, in which the meaning of the parts are determined by the meaning of the whole, while the latter has an upward direction, which is more closely related to the formation of sentences, where the meaning of the parts constitute to the meaning of the whole (McNeill, 2000a; 2005). Synthetic refers to the fact that one gesture can be spread across the entire accompanying sentence (gesticulation), or can entail the “scope over a full surface structure” (2000a, p. 5) (emblem). Sign language on the other hand is analytic, for semantic parts have separate gestures, which are provided as the sentence progresses. Pantomime is most likely also analytic. However, without a clear definition of what pantomime is, it is not possible for this attribution to be definite.

Table 2.1 Continuum 1: relationship between gesture and speech

Gesticulation  Emblem  Pantomime  Sign Language

Obligatory presence of

speech

Optional presence of

speech

Obligatory absence of

speech

Obligatory absence of

speech

Table 2.2 Continuum 2: absence or presence of linguistic properties in the gesture

Gesticulation  Pantomime  Emblem  Sign Language

Linguistic properties

absent

Some linguistic properties

present

Table 2.3 Continuum 3: degree of convention

Not

conventionalized Not

conventionalized Partly

conventionalized Fully

conventionalized

Table 2.4 Continuum 4: character of semiosis

Global and synthetic

Global and analytic

Segmented and synthetic

Segmented and analytic In gesture research, sign languages are usually seen as a totally separate field.

Emblems and gesticulation are both part of the gesture field, but while emblems are investigated when the focus is on specific cross-‐cultural differences, gesticulation is studied to gain information regarding the relationship between speech and gesture.

Nevertheless, there are also cross-‐cultural and cross-‐linguistic differences in gesticulation, which will be discussed in the following chapter. These differences lay the foundation of this study. Gesticulation can be divided into 5 subcategories: beats, deictic gestures, metaphoric gestures, iconic gestures, and cohesive gestures (McNeill, 1992).

Beats refer to the rhythmic movements we make, often to accentuate a certain word that holds importance. They are usually short and sharp movements, whose forms are

(12)

independent of the actual content. Deictic gestures refer to all pointing gestures made during speech, and can be created by using every part of the body, including gaze, with the extended index finger being the prototype. Pointing can be used to refer to concrete entities, however, most pointing occurring in adult speech entails abstract deictic gestures (McNeill, 1992) referring to abstract notions. The abstract form of pointing is also part of the metaphoric gesture categorization, which refers to gestures that represent abstract images. Rather than presenting an absent object, this type of gesture indicates an abstract concept, like an idea or a memory (McNeill, 2005). The fourth category that can be distinguished is iconic gestures, which are gestures whose forms represent concrete concepts. An iconic gesture embodies characteristics of the object or movement it represents, with context still being required to make sense of the gesture;

the same gesture can be representative of different concepts. Finally, cohesive gestures, also named catchments, refer to a “recurrence of gestures features over a stretch of discourse” (McNeill, 2000b, p. 316).

2.3 The connection between gestures and speech

Throughout the years there has been a difference in the approach of gestures: while, initially, the main focus was rhetoric, describing how gestures should be used, a switch took place during the 18^th century (Enlightenment period), when the origin of language became a popular topic of research (McNeill, 1992). They viewed gestures as the predecessors of spoken language, and this interest still continues in contemporary research: Arbib (2005) found mirror neurons in primates for grasping, which, although originally not intended for communication, provided a biological basis for our ancestors that led to “complex imitation”: the “ability to understand and imitate intentional behaviors” (Diessel, 2013, p. 240). According to the Mirror System Hypothesis (Arbib, 2012), this ability gave rise to the development of gestural communication and, subsequently, to spoken languages. After World War II, a new interest into gestures arose with the arrival of the information theory (McNeill, 1992). From this perspective, speech and gestures were seen as two different codes, digital and analogical. While the linguistic system was regarded as a digital code, gestures were seen as “analogical signals and thus paralinguistic – beside language” (McNeill, p. 4, emphasis in original).

This view on gestures was challenged by Kendon (1972), who was the first to elaborately analyze the relationship between gestures and speech by giving a detailed description of the interaction between the spoken discourse and gesture use of a

(13)

speaker. He concluded that “speech and movement that directly accompanies it, at least, are under the guidance of the same controlling mechanism” (p. 206).

This initiated a discussion regarding the significance of the relationship between gesticulations and speech. Kendon (2007) divides the different theoretical views being put forward into two camps, indicating a probable oversimplification of this division. On the one hand, he distinguishes speech auxiliary theories that regard gestures as a tool to help the speaker arrive at a verbal expression, the ultimate objective of a speaker.

Whenever a speaker uses gestures during their discourse, this is considered a

“consequence of some failure to accomplish the task of verbalisation” (Kendon, p. 8), with gestures aiding in this task, either by organizing thought (Freedman, 1977; Kita, 2000; Rimé & Schiaratura, 1991) or by helping to find the needed words (Krauss, Chen

& Gottesman, 2000). From this point of view, gestures are not regarded as important information in respect to the meaning of the speaker’s utterance, but can provide information regarding the mental processes involved in speech production (Kendon, 2007). On the other hand, he distinguishes the partnership theories, which see gestures as part of the speaker’s final product. This final product does not necessarily have to be spoken, but may consist of any resources available: spoken language, gestures, or a combination of the two. Gestures are therefore seen as an important part of the message the speaker is trying to convey. Although Kendon (1972) is the only one that states this view explicitly, most research in the field of gesture studies (Clark, 1996; De Ruiter, 2000; Gullberg; 2010; McNeill, 1992; 2005) share this point of view. The understanding of the underlying processes of language, including both speech and gestures, differs per researcher, but they all agree that gestures, speech, and language form an integrated system and are planned and processed in conjunction.

Gullberg (2010) provides evidence for the tight link between gestures and speech. Firstly, gestures have linguistic functions in utterances, by, for example,

“providing content to deictic expressions” (Gullberg, p. 78). An utterance such as “can you hand me that” needs gestural information in order for the interlocutor to understand the full message. Furthermore, the co-‐expressivity of gestures and speech also hints towards co-‐planning. This refers to the occurrence of speech and gestures providing closely related meaning at the same time, and can clearly be experienced when gestures wait for the accompanying speech, called ‘gesture holds’ (Gullberg).

Thirdly, Gullberg refers to the fact that in comprehension, the interpretation and memory of spoken utterances is affected by gestures; gestures often reoccur in retellings

(14)

(Cassell, McNeill & McCullough, 1999). Moreover, current research on a neural connection between speech and co-‐speech gestures suggests that the processes involved in comprehending speech and gesture together resemble the processes of speech alone (Özyürek & Kelly, 2007). Finally, Gullberg (2010) mentions that research on language development in children reveals that speech and gestures develop parallel, “with gestures possibly foreshadowing speech” (p. 79).

(15)

Chapter 3: Cross-‐cultural and cross-‐linguistic gesture differences

3.1 Introduction

The first large-‐scale research on gestures was conducted by Efron (1941), who showed that gestures are not determined by racial or biological factors, but rather by cultural factors. He compared the gestures of Jewish and Italian immigrants living in New York, of which half had just arrived in the US and were still speaking their own language, and with the other half already being assimilated to the American culture. In total, he analyzed and compared the gestures of 850 ‘traditional’ Jews, 700 ‘traditional’ Italians, 600 ‘assimilated’ Jews, and 400 ‘assimilated’ Italians. Efron distinguished three dimensions of analyzing: a kinetic dimension that deals with the details of the movement, an interlocutional dimension, which refers to the spatial arrangement of the gestures in relation to the connection between the interlocutors, and finally a linguistic dimension, dealing with the relationship between the gestures and the spoken utterance. He found significant differences between the ‘traditional’ Italians and Jews for all three dimensions, but also found that the assimilated Italians and Jews differed far less, suggesting that gestures are mainly culturally determined, and already hinting at the fact that gesture use is different for bilinguals (see section 4.3). Efron’s study made way for further research on this topic, and since, more studies have been conducted regarding differences in gestures between language cultures, although none on such a large scale. Those studies usually make a distinction between actual cultural differences and linguistic differences, which are linked to the structural differences between the accompanying languages (Alferink, 2008).

3.2 Cultural differences

Until recently, most research regarding gestures has focused on individual differences in gesture use and what they reveal about the cognitive style of different speakers (Kendon, 1997). Despite the fact that individual differences have a large effect on the use of gestures during conversation (Alibali, 2005), there appear to be conventions regarding gesture use, specific for different cultures. This is clearly evident in the case of emblems, which are culture dependent; they are roughly the same for each user of a certain culture or group, with certain emblems having different meanings across different cultures and some being transcultural (Yoshioka, 2005). A good example of the former is the ‘fig’ gesture (a fist while the thumb is placed in between the index and middle finger), which is seen as an offensive and obscure gesture in many countries,

(16)

such as Greece, Italy, Russia and Turkey, while in parts of Eastern Europe, “it means

‘zero’ or ‘nothing’” (Yoshioka, p. 24), and it signifies the letter ‘t’ in American Sign Language. An example of a transcultural emblem is the extension of the middle finger as an offensive gesture. Due to their cross-‐cultural differences, emblems often lead to misunderstandings between interlocutors of two different languages, both by the speaker misusing emblems and by the listener wrongly interpreting the emblems used by the native speaker (Archer, 1997).

However, also in gesticulation there are cultural differences; according to Gullberg (2010), “individual gesture production is realized within the boundaries of culturally and linguistically determined repertoires” (p.78). This is due to the interconnectedness of gestures and speech, since both are part of the ‘expressive strategy’ of the interlocutors, and therefore, influenced by “cultural values and historical tradition” (Kendon, 1997, p. 117). Of all gesticulation types, deictic gestures are the most straightforward in their cultural differences; as already briefly mentioned in the previous chapter, although the prototypical way of pointing in Western Europe is with an extended index finger, there are cultures in which different parts of the body or hand are used. Besides the form of gestures, cultural differences can also be found in gesture frequency and the viewpoint of gestures. So (2010) showed that there is a difference between American English speakers and Chinese speakers regarding gesture frequency, with the Americans producing more gestures, both representational and nonrepresentational, than the Chinese. Furthermore, she also analyzed the gesture use of Chinese-‐English bilinguals and found a transfer of representational gesture use from English to Chinese, suggesting a “closely intertwined relationship of representational gestures and accompanying speech” (So, p. 1335). Regarding viewpoint, McNeill (1992) distinguishes two manifestations: Character Viewpoint (C-‐VPT) and Observer viewpoint (O-‐VPT). In the former, the speaker’s gestures represent the hands of the character and portray what the character is doing, while for the latter, the speaker’s gestures represent the character as a whole, distancing him or herself from the scene. McNeill also distinguishes a dual viewpoint, in which the two former viewpoints are presented simultaneously. The use of viewpoints is culturally determined, for example, Japanese tend to mainly use C-‐VPT, while English speakers prefer the O-‐VPT (Brown, 2008). For Japanese speakers of English, the preference of viewpoint was transferred from the L2 to the first language (L1), for they “patterned more like the monolingual English speakers than their monolingual Japanese counterparts” (Brown, p. 256). Despite a

(17)

growing interest in the analysis of cultural differences between languages, revealing specific differences, not much is yet known about the exact cultural differences between English and Dutch, possibly due to the fact that the two cultures are quite similar.

However, one main gesture difference between the two languages is the manner in which finger-‐counting occurs; where the Dutch start counting with their thumb, indicating number one, continuing to the pinky, the English start with their index finger and finish with the extension of the thumb to indicate the number 5.

Despite these straightforward cases of cultural differences in gestures, just as gesture production, perception of gestures and its cultural differences also occurs mainly unconsciously; gestures are mostly not taught in language classes, and are therefore implicitly acquired rather than explicitly learned. However, Sapir (1949) mentions that we still “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” (as cited in Archer, 1997, p. 95). Furthermore, Alferink (2008) showed that people can intuitively be identified belonging to a particular language and culture solely based on their gesture use during a narrative.

3.3 Linguistic differences

In addition to cultural differences, a growing body of work is revealing that linguistic differences between languages can also lead to differences in gestures, due to the

“semantic and temporal coordination between speech and gesture” (Gullberg, 2008, p.

282). As a result, speakers from typologically different languages tend to gesture differently (Özyürek, Kita, Allen & Brown, 2005). A distinction can be made between the influence of semantic differences and differences regarding syntactic structure, with the former influencing the form of gestures and the latter mostly influencing the timing.

Differences in semantic coordination can for example be found in the difference of placement verbs between languages. Three types of languages can be distinguished regarding verb inventories: languages with one single placement verb (e.g. English: put or French: mettre ‘put’), languages which have small sets of obligatory verbs that are usually based on posture (e.g. Dutch: leggen/zetten ‘lay’/’set’ or Swedish:

sätta/ställa/lägga ‘set’/’stand’/’lay’), and lastly, languages that have a large set of classificatory verbs (e.g. Tzeltal verb roots xij- ‘place sticklike things regardless of orientation’, Brown, 2006) (Gullberg, 2009). Gullberg (2011) found that this distinction between French and Dutch was also present in the gestures of native speakers: where the French solely gesture the direction of the movement, the Dutch also gesture “about

Gestures and Second Language Acquisition: