1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Gesture
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Different embodied motivations converge in a single recurrent gesture
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Over the past few decades, gesture researchers have shown growing interest in the idea that certain gestural forms are conventionally associated with fairly specific, yet not too narrow, semantic and pragmatic meanings. These gestures are referred to as and are argued to be grounded in bodily experiences, including instrumental actions and movement patterns. In this paper, we first provide supporting evidence for the conventionalized status of the target kinetic pattern of this study — the Two-Handed Alternation gesture on the Sagittal axis (2HAS). We then demonstrate how two different types of embodied motivations, namely (grounded in instrumental actions) and (grounded in bodily experiences of movement patterns), converge in the single recurrent kinetic pattern of 2HAS, giving rise to its various referential and pragmatic functions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/gest.26001.kur
2026-06-05
2026-07-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/gest.26001.kur
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/gest.26001.kur/gest.26001.kur.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/gest.26001.kur&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Andrén, M.
    (2010) Children’s gestures from 18 to 30 months. [Doctoral dissertation, Lund University].
  2. Bressem, J.
    (2013) A linguistic perspective on the notation of form features in gestures. InMüller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D. & Tessendorf, S. (Eds.), Body, language, communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (), pp. –. De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bressem, J., & Müller, C.
    (2014a) A repertoire of German recurrent gestures with pragmatic functions. InMüller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D. & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body, language, communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (), pp. –. De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bressem, J., & Müller, C.
    (2014b) The family of Away gestures. Negation, refusal and negative assessment. InMüller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D. & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body, Language, Communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (), pp. –. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110302028.1592
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302028.1592 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2017) The “Negative-Assessment-Construction” — A multimodal pattern based on a recurrent gesture?Linguistics Vanguard, (), –. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0053
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0053 [Google Scholar]
  6. Calbris, G.
    (2003) From cutting an object to a clear cut analysis: Gesture as the representation of a preconceptual schema linking concrete actions to abstract notions. Gesture, (), –. 10.1075/gest.3.1.03cal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.3.1.03cal [Google Scholar]
  7. Cienki, A.
    (1998) Straight: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive Linguistics, , –. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.107
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.107 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2005) Image schemas and gesture. InHampe, B. (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, pp. –. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197532.5.421
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.5.421 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2013) Image schemas and mimetic schemas in cognitive linguistics and gesture studies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/rcl.11.2.13cie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.11.2.13cie [Google Scholar]
  10. (2015) Spoken language usage events. Language and Cognition(), –. 10.1017/langcog.2015.20
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.20 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cienki, A., Avelar, M., & Iriskhanova, O.
    (2025) Action schemas can account for prototypical and non-prototypical Palm-Up Open Hand gestures. Languages, (), . –. 10.3390/languages10110282
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10110282 [Google Scholar]
  12. Donald, M.
    (1991) Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of human culture. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, C.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InThe Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, pp.–. Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language(), –. 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hampe, B.
    (2005) Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. InHampe, B. (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, pp. –. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197532.0.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hasebe, Y.
    (2015) Design and implementation of an online corpus of presentation transcripts of TED Talks. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.434
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.434 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hilpert, M.
    (2019) Construction grammar and its application to English. 2nd edn. Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474433624
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474433624 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hinnell, J.
    (2018) The multimodal marking of aspect: The case of five periphrastic auxiliary constructions in North American English. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0009 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoffmann, T.
    (2017) Multimodal constructs — multimodal constructions? the role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard, (), –. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0042
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0042 [Google Scholar]
  21. Iriskhanova, O., & Prokofyeva, O.
    (2020) Markers of uncertainty in speech and gesture: some cognitive implications for Grice’s maxims. Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Jakobson, R.
    (1987 [1960]) Linguistics and poetics. InPomorska, K. & Rudy, S. (Eds.), Roman Jakobson, language in literature, pp. –. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of reason and imagination. Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kendon, A.
    (1995) Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00037‑F
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00037-F [Google Scholar]
  25. (2004) Gesture. Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuryu, D.
    (2025) Crossmodal collostructional analysis of English [ADV and ADV] constructions: Multimodal constructions or crossmodal collostructions?Language and Cognition, , , –. 10.1017/langcog.2025.8
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2025.8 [Google Scholar]
  27. (in prep.). Regularity and schematicity in multimodal constructions: The case of ‘back and forth’ + bidirectional gestures. Unpublished manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuryu, D., Zlatev, J., & Polfeldt, H.
    (submitted). Recurrent gestures, embodiment, and sedimentation: A cognitive-semiotic exploration of the Two-Handed-Alternation-Sagittal (2HAS) gesture in Japanese and Swedish. Unpublished manuscript submitted toSemiotica.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Ladewig, S.
    (2011) Putting the cyclic gesture on a cognitive basis. CogniTextes, . –. 10.4000/cognitextes.406
     https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.406 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2014) Recurrent gestures. InMüller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D. & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body, language, communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (), pp. –. De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2020) Integrating gestures. The dimension of multimodality in cognitive grammar. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110668568
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110668568 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2024) Recurrent gestures: Cultural, individual, and linguistic dimensions of meaning-making. InCienki, A. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of gesture studies, pp. –. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108638869.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108638869.003 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2025) Embodied sharpness: exploring the slicing gesture in political talk shows. Frontiers in Psychology, :, –. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1494192
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1494192 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Marrese, O., Raymond, C., Fox, B., Ford, C., & Pielke, M.
    (2021) The grammar of obviousness: The Palm-Up gesture in argument sequences. Frontiers in Communication, , , –. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.663067
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.663067 [Google Scholar]
  37. McNeill, D.
    (1992) Hand and mind. What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (2008) Unexpected metaphors. InCienki, A. & Müller, C. (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture, pp. –. John Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.3.09mcn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.3.09mcn [Google Scholar]
  39. Mittelberg, I.
    (2010) Geometric and image-schematic patterns in gesture space. InEvans, V. & Chilton, P. (Eds.), Language, cognition, and space: The state of the art and new directions, pp. –. Equinox. 10.3138/9781845535032‑016
     https://doi.org/10.3138/9781845535032-016 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2017) Embodied frames and scenes: Body-based metonymy and pragmatic inferencing in gesture. Gesture, , –. 10.1075/gest.16.2.03mit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.2.03mit [Google Scholar]
  41. (2018) Gestures as image schemas and force gestalts: A dynamic-systems approach augmented with motion-capture data analyses. Cognitive Semiotics, (), –. 10.1515/cogsem‑2018‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-0002 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2019a) Peirce’s universal categories: On their potential for gesture theory and multimodal analysis. Semiotica, , –. 10.1515/sem‑2018‑0090
     https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0090 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2019b) Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates forms, functions, and schematic patterns in gesture. Frontiers in Psychology, , , –. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254 [Google Scholar]
  44. Müller, C.
    (2004) Forms and uses of the Palm Up Open Hand. A case of a gesture family?InMüller, C. & Posner, R. (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures, pp. –. Weidler.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (2014a) Gesture as “deliberate expressive movement”. InSeyfeddinipur, M. & Gullberg, M. (Eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance, pp. –. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.188.07mul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.188.07mul [Google Scholar]
  46. Müller, C.
    (2014b) The ring across space and time: variation and stability of forms and meanings. InMüller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D. & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body, language, communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (), pp. –. De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (2014c) Gestural Modes of Representation as techniques of depiction. InMüller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D. & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body, language, communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (), pp. –. De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. (2016) From mimesis to meaning: A systematics of gestural mimesis for concrete and abstract referential gestures. InZlatev, J., Sonesson, G. & Konderak, P. (Eds.) Meaning, mind and communication: Explorations in cognitive semiotics, pp. –. Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Müller, C.
    (2017) How recurrent gestures mean: conventionalized contexts-of-use and embodied motivation. Gesture, (), –. 10.1075/gest.16.2.05mul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.2.05mul [Google Scholar]
  50. (2018) Gesture and sign: Cataclysmic break or dynamic relations?Frontiers in Psychology, , , –. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01651
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01651 [Google Scholar]
  51. Reddy, M.
    (1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. InOrtony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, pp. –. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Ruth-Hirrel, L.
    (2018) Cyclic gestures and multimodal symbolic assemblies: An argument for symbolic complexity in gesture. [Doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico].
  53. Schoonjans, S.
    (2017) Multimodal construction grammar issues are construction grammar issues. Linguistics Vanguard, (), –. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0050
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0050 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schoonjans, S., & Schönherr, B.
    (2025) Frequency issues in multimodal Construction Grammar revisited. Nota Bene, (). –. 10.1075/nb.00028.sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00028.sch [Google Scholar]
  55. Streeck, J.
    (2009) Gesturecraft. The manu-facture of meaning. John Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.2 [Google Scholar]
  56. Tessendorf, S.
    (2014) Pragmatic and metaphoric — combining functional with cognitive approaches in the analysis of the “brushing aside gesture”. InMüller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D. & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body, language, communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (), pp. –. De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Uhrig, P.
    (2021) Large-scale multimodal corpus linguistics: The big data turn. [Habilitation Thesis, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg].
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E.
    (1991) The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A., & Sloetjes, H.
    (2006) ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. InCalzolari, N., Choukri, K., Gangemi, A., Maegaard, B., Mariani, J., Odijk, J., & Tapias, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’06), pp. –. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). 10.63317/5pwa5zpssv4z
     https://doi.org/10.63317/5pwa5zpssv4z [Google Scholar]
  60. Zahavi, D.
    (2018) Phenomenology: The basics. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315441603
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315441603 [Google Scholar]
  61. Zima, E., & Bergs, A.
    (2017) Multimodality and construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, (), –. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑1006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-1006 [Google Scholar]
  62. Zlatev, J.
    (2005) What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. InHampe, B. (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, pp. –. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197532.4.313
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.4.313 [Google Scholar]
  63. (2007) Language, embodiment and mimesis. InZiemke, T., Zlatev, J. & Frank, R. (Eds.), Body, language, mind. Vol 1: Embodiment, pp. –. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110207507.3.297
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207507.3.297 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2014) Image schemas, mimetic schemas and children’s gestures. Cognitive Semiotics, (), –. 10.1515/cogsem‑2014‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2014-0002 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2018) Meaning making from life to language: The semiotic hierarchy and phenomenology. Cognitive Semiotics, (), –. 10.1515/cogsem‑2018‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-0001 [Google Scholar]
  66. (in press). Five pillars of cognitive semiotics. InBilgari, A. Ed. Open Semiotics Vol 5. Editions L’Harmattan.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Zlatev, J., Devylder, S., Defina, R., Moskaluk, K., & Andersen, L.
    (2023) Analyzing polysemiosis: Language, gesture, and depiction in two cultural practices with sand drawing. Semiotica, , –. 10.1515/sem‑2022‑0102
     https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2022-0102 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.26001.kur
Loading
Different embodied motivations converge in a single recurrent gesture
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.26001.kur
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.26001.kur
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.26001.kur
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: kinetic grid ; recurrent gestures ; embodied schemas ; multifunctionality ; Two-Handed-Alternation-Sagittal (2HAS) gesture

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error