, those gestures are almost always temporally aligned in some meaningful way with a spoken utterance. With respect to meaning, gesture and speech have been argued to share an underlying conceptual message and to collaborate as two mechanisms for communicating this message (McNeill 1992). In this sense, gesture and speech are considered to be coexpressive, although the contributions of these communicative channels may be supplementary to, or redundant with one another (de Ruiter, Bangerter, and Dings 2012; Goldin-Meadow 2003a). These two fundamental dimensions ?timing and meaning ?frame the broader study of the relationship between gesture and language. The co-timing of gesture and speech has import for the PD325901 dose prosodic integration of gesture and language (Section 3.1), whereas their co-expressivity has import for the meaningful integration of gesture and language (Section 3.2). 3.1. TEMPORAL AND PROSODIC INTEGRATION OF SPEECH AND GESTURE Considering gesture as but one component of a multi-channel and multi-modal communicative system, we draw an analogy to the prosodic structure of language. The pitch excursuses and phrasing (via pausing and other boundary markers) of the prosodic system would lose their import if they were not temporally anchored to the segmental stream in a meaningful way. The prosodic focus of a constituent, for example, has its intended effect because of its meaningful, temporal alignment with that constituent. Temporal alignment is also a basic property of Aprotinin site co-speech gesture, one that is likely necessary for gesture to be understood by listeners. The stroke of an iconic gesture, for example, is produced in temporal alignment with the linguistic unit whose meaning it iconically represents or supplements, sometimes called the “lexical affiliate” (Butterworth and Beattie 1978; Kendon 1972; McNeill 1992; Morrel-Samuels and GSK-AHAB dose Krauss 1992; Nobe 2000; Schegloff 1984), although it is often impossible to associate a gesture with a single lexical meaning as itsLang Linguist Compass. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.Abner et al.Pagemeaning may be associated with a larger linguistic unit. Moreover, this PM01183 site synchronization is not always perfect, with gestures very often slightly preceding the part of speech with which they are associated. Interestingly, these slight misalignments do not seem to pose trouble for listeners (de Ruiter 2000; McNeill 2005). The analogy between prosody and gesture becomes even more apparent in light of the evidence that these two communicative channels, in addition to integrating with the segmental speech stream, also integrate with and influence each other (Swerts and Krahmer 2008). Indeed, early research in prosody, now a productive subfield of linguistics in its own right, drew explicit connections between gesture and prosody (Bolinger 1983). Beat gestures, for example, integrate with the prosodic and rhythmic structure of language (hence, “beat”) and have been found to align with prosodic peaks (Leonard and Cummins 2011, Roustan and Dohen 2010) and stressed syllables (McClave 1994). Numerous studies have also found that the presence and position of co-speech gesture can influence perceived prominence (Bull and Connelly 1985). Interestingly, Krahmer and Swerts (2007) have found that the relationship between gesture and prosody is bi-directional ?hearers perceive increased prosodic prominence when a meaningless beat gesture is present, and speakers increase the prosodic prominence of lingu., those gestures are almost always temporally aligned in some meaningful way with a spoken utterance. With respect to meaning, gesture and speech have been argued to share an underlying conceptual message and to collaborate as two mechanisms for communicating this message (McNeill 1992). In this sense, gesture and speech are considered to be coexpressive, although the contributions of these communicative channels may be supplementary to, or redundant with one another (de Ruiter, Bangerter, and Dings 2012; Goldin-Meadow 2003a). These two fundamental dimensions ?timing and meaning ?frame the broader study of the relationship between gesture and language. The co-timing of gesture and speech has import for the prosodic integration of gesture and language (Section 3.1), whereas their co-expressivity has import for the meaningful integration of gesture and language (Section 3.2). 3.1. TEMPORAL AND PROSODIC INTEGRATION OF SPEECH AND GESTURE Considering gesture as but one component of a multi-channel and multi-modal communicative system, we draw an analogy to the prosodic structure of language. The pitch excursuses and phrasing (via pausing and other boundary markers) of the prosodic system would lose their import if they were not temporally anchored to the segmental stream in a meaningful way. The prosodic focus of a constituent, for example, has its intended effect because of its meaningful, temporal alignment with that constituent. Temporal alignment is also a basic property of co-speech gesture, one that is likely necessary for gesture to be understood by listeners. The stroke of an iconic gesture, for example, is produced in temporal alignment with the linguistic unit whose meaning it iconically represents or supplements, sometimes called the “lexical affiliate” (Butterworth and Beattie 1978; Kendon 1972; McNeill 1992; Morrel-Samuels and Krauss 1992; Nobe 2000; Schegloff 1984), although it is often impossible to associate a gesture with a single lexical meaning as itsLang Linguist Compass. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.Abner et al.Pagemeaning may be associated with a larger linguistic unit. Moreover, this synchronization is not always perfect, with gestures very often slightly preceding the part of speech with which they are associated. Interestingly, these slight misalignments do not seem to pose trouble for listeners (de Ruiter 2000; McNeill 2005). The analogy between prosody and gesture becomes even more apparent in light of the evidence that these two communicative channels, in addition to integrating with the segmental speech stream, also integrate with and influence each other (Swerts and Krahmer 2008). Indeed, early research in prosody, now a productive subfield of linguistics in its own right, drew explicit connections between gesture and prosody (Bolinger 1983). Beat gestures, for example, integrate with the prosodic and rhythmic structure of language (hence, “beat”) and have been found to align with prosodic peaks (Leonard and Cummins 2011, Roustan and Dohen 2010) and stressed syllables (McClave 1994). Numerous studies have also found that the presence and position of co-speech gesture can influence perceived prominence (Bull and Connelly 1985). Interestingly, Krahmer and Swerts (2007) have found that the relationship between gesture and prosody is bi-directional ?hearers perceive increased prosodic prominence when a meaningless beat gesture is present, and speakers increase the prosodic prominence of lingu., those gestures are almost always temporally aligned in some meaningful way with a spoken utterance. With respect to meaning, gesture and speech have been argued to share an underlying conceptual message and to collaborate as two mechanisms for communicating this message (McNeill 1992). In this sense, gesture and speech are considered to be coexpressive, although the contributions of these communicative channels may be supplementary to, or redundant with one another (de Ruiter, Bangerter, and Dings 2012; Goldin-Meadow 2003a). These two fundamental dimensions ?timing and meaning ?frame the broader study of the relationship between gesture and language. The co-timing of gesture and speech has import for the prosodic integration of gesture and language (Section 3.1), whereas their co-expressivity has import for the meaningful integration of gesture and language (Section 3.2). 3.1. TEMPORAL AND PROSODIC INTEGRATION OF SPEECH AND GESTURE Considering gesture as but one component of a multi-channel and multi-modal communicative system, we draw an analogy to the prosodic structure of language. The pitch excursuses and phrasing (via pausing and other boundary markers) of the prosodic system would lose their import if they were not temporally anchored to the segmental stream in a meaningful way. The prosodic focus of a constituent, for example, has its intended effect because of its meaningful, temporal alignment with that constituent. Temporal alignment is also a basic property of co-speech gesture, one that is likely necessary for gesture to be understood by listeners. The stroke of an iconic gesture, for example, is produced in temporal alignment with the linguistic unit whose meaning it iconically represents or supplements, sometimes called the “lexical affiliate” (Butterworth and Beattie 1978; Kendon 1972; McNeill 1992; Morrel-Samuels and Krauss 1992; Nobe 2000; Schegloff 1984), although it is often impossible to associate a gesture with a single lexical meaning as itsLang Linguist Compass. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.Abner et al.Pagemeaning may be associated with a larger linguistic unit. Moreover, this synchronization is not always perfect, with gestures very often slightly preceding the part of speech with which they are associated. Interestingly, these slight misalignments do not seem to pose trouble for listeners (de Ruiter 2000; McNeill 2005). The analogy between prosody and gesture becomes even more apparent in light of the evidence that these two communicative channels, in addition to integrating with the segmental speech stream, also integrate with and influence each other (Swerts and Krahmer 2008). Indeed, early research in prosody, now a productive subfield of linguistics in its own right, drew explicit connections between gesture and prosody (Bolinger 1983). Beat gestures, for example, integrate with the prosodic and rhythmic structure of language (hence, “beat”) and have been found to align with prosodic peaks (Leonard and Cummins 2011, Roustan and Dohen 2010) and stressed syllables (McClave 1994). Numerous studies have also found that the presence and position of co-speech gesture can influence perceived prominence (Bull and Connelly 1985). Interestingly, Krahmer and Swerts (2007) have found that the relationship between gesture and prosody is bi-directional ?hearers perceive increased prosodic prominence when a meaningless beat gesture is present, and speakers increase the prosodic prominence of lingu., those gestures are almost always temporally aligned in some meaningful way with a spoken utterance. With respect to meaning, gesture and speech have been argued to share an underlying conceptual message and to collaborate as two mechanisms for communicating this message (McNeill 1992). In this sense, gesture and speech are considered to be coexpressive, although the contributions of these communicative channels may be supplementary to, or redundant with one another (de Ruiter, Bangerter, and Dings 2012; Goldin-Meadow 2003a). These two fundamental dimensions ?timing and meaning ?frame the broader study of the relationship between gesture and language. The co-timing of gesture and speech has import for the prosodic integration of gesture and language (Section 3.1), whereas their co-expressivity has import for the meaningful integration of gesture and language (Section 3.2). 3.1. TEMPORAL AND PROSODIC INTEGRATION OF SPEECH AND GESTURE Considering gesture as but one component of a multi-channel and multi-modal communicative system, we draw an analogy to the prosodic structure of language. The pitch excursuses and phrasing (via pausing and other boundary markers) of the prosodic system would lose their import if they were not temporally anchored to the segmental stream in a meaningful way. The prosodic focus of a constituent, for example, has its intended effect because of its meaningful, temporal alignment with that constituent. Temporal alignment is also a basic property of co-speech gesture, one that is likely necessary for gesture to be understood by listeners. The stroke of an iconic gesture, for example, is produced in temporal alignment with the linguistic unit whose meaning it iconically represents or supplements, sometimes called the “lexical affiliate” (Butterworth and Beattie 1978; Kendon 1972; McNeill 1992; Morrel-Samuels and Krauss 1992; Nobe 2000; Schegloff 1984), although it is often impossible to associate a gesture with a single lexical meaning as itsLang Linguist Compass. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.Abner et al.Pagemeaning may be associated with a larger linguistic unit. Moreover, this synchronization is not always perfect, with gestures very often slightly preceding the part of speech with which they are associated. Interestingly, these slight misalignments do not seem to pose trouble for listeners (de Ruiter 2000; McNeill 2005). The analogy between prosody and gesture becomes even more apparent in light of the evidence that these two communicative channels, in addition to integrating with the segmental speech stream, also integrate with and influence each other (Swerts and Krahmer 2008). Indeed, early research in prosody, now a productive subfield of linguistics in its own right, drew explicit connections between gesture and prosody (Bolinger 1983). Beat gestures, for example, integrate with the prosodic and rhythmic structure of language (hence, “beat”) and have been found to align with prosodic peaks (Leonard and Cummins 2011, Roustan and Dohen 2010) and stressed syllables (McClave 1994). Numerous studies have also found that the presence and position of co-speech gesture can influence perceived prominence (Bull and Connelly 1985). Interestingly, Krahmer and Swerts (2007) have found that the relationship between gesture and prosody is bi-directional ?hearers perceive increased prosodic prominence when a meaningless beat gesture is present, and speakers increase the prosodic prominence of lingu.
