Gesture - Volume 18, Issue 2-3, 2019

This contribution is the introduction for the special issue of Gesture entitled “Anthropology of Gesture”. As such, it raises two main questions: how do gestures contribute to the field of anthropology? And, inversely, how anthropology can improve our understanding of gesture and gestural behaviours? Of particular importance for this special issue, is the emphasis on what Lempert called “the anthropological sensibility” which aims at taking a more cultural and ethnographic approach to the study of gesture, especially but not only in cross-cultural contexts. The last part of this introduction presents all the contributions of this special issue.

This essay is a (necessarily selective) historical review of some contributions to the study of gesture (in all its varieties) from an anthropological perspective. Reasons for an interest in gesture by the authors considered are varied. Some are interested because it seems a simpler form of communication which might throw light on language emergence, others see it as interesting as a form of communication in its own right. In the early days of ethnography attempts were made to describe all aspects of “primitive”or “savage” life and if gestures were noticed an attempt would be made to describe them. Later on, especially as we get into the second half of the twentieth century, much study of gesture was motivated by the idea that it might serve as a “window” on mental processes, rather than how it works in communication, but in recent years the role of gesture in communication has once again received more emphasis and its study from an anthropological viewpoint has, accordingly, again gained in importance.

For gesture research outside anthropology, the promise – and challenge – of anthropological method stems from one or more of its core commitments: its pursuit of human variation, both diachronic and synchronic; its insistence on naturalistic rather than experimental research design; and its integrative sensibility that situates human behavior in relation to an expansive sociocultural context. This essay reflects on this last sensibility. As we envision an anthropology of gesture and weigh its potential for gesture studies, we should pause and reflect on the fitful history of gesture in anthropology. As a parable for the present, I revisit a neglected anthropological voice from twentieth-century gesture research: Ray L. Birdwhistell, whose ambitious postwar science of kinesics teamed film-based microanalysis with American linguistic structuralism. At stake in Birdwhistell’s work was a problem that looms large here, that of how and at what cost a science of gesture can contextualize its object integratively.

At the dawn of anthropology, gesture was widely considered a “universal language”. In the 20th century, however, this framing fell out of favor as anthropologists rejected universalism in favor of relativism. These polemical positions were largely fueled by high-flying rhetoric and second-hand report; researchers had neither the data nor the conceptual frameworks to stake out substantive positions. Today we have much more data, but our frameworks remain underdeveloped and often implicit. Here, I outline several emerging conceptual tools that help us make sense of universals and diversity in gesture. I then sketch the state of our knowledge about a handful of gestural phenomena, further developing these conceptual tools on the way. This brief survey underscores a clear conclusion: gesture is unmistakably similar around the world while also being broadly diverse. Our task ahead is to put polemics aside and explore this duality systematically – and soon, before gestural diversity dwindles further.

Scientific interest in the diversity of gestural signalling dates back to the figure of Charles Darwin. More than a hundred years later, there is a considerable body of work describing human gestural diversity across languages and cultures. However, the question of communicative culture in our closest living relatives, the nonhuman primates, is relatively unexplored. Here, we will stir new interest into this topic by (i) briefly summarizing the current knowledge of animal culture, and (ii) presenting the current knowledge on gesture cultures, diversity and usage in the most common model for early hominid behaviour, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). We will focus particularly on well-established behaviours being customary in some and absent in other chimpanzee communities, and recently discovered social customs that have been suggested to differ in their form, and/or meaning across populations. We also introduce latest findings on chimpanzees’ gestural diversity, providing further evidence for the role social negotiation plays in gestural acquisition. We conclude that the field has been hampered by misconstruing great ape gestures as fixed action patterns, a strong research bias on the perspective of signalers, and a lack of coherent methodology to assess the meaning and context of gestures across sites. We argue for systematic cross-site comparisons by viewing communicative exchanges as negotiations, enabling a unique perspective onto the evolutionary trajectory of culture and communication.

Current anthropological studies of gesture give extensive attention to communities of study from a synchronic perspective while also focusing on semantic, cognitive, and linguistic analyses of gesture. However, less well explored is how the uses and meanings of gestures can change over time within societies and the role of gesture in social interactions. In addition, individual, interpersonal, and societal level politics can also influence what gestures mean and how they are strategically used. This paper uses careful analysis of European missionary reports and trader accounts written in the late 17th and early 18th centuries to focus on shifting power relations in the pre-colonial era Kongo Kingdom in West Central Africa. Larger social transformations will be used to contextualize three key incidents where gestures were at the center of complex negotiations about meaning and power. The paper argues for gesture studies scholars to consider deep, contextual, and historically grounded examinations of gestures and the role they play in shaping relationships and societies.

This paper presents an analysis of a data set consisting of instances of body-directed gesture that occurred in racializing expressions of social difference during ethnographic interviews with two neighboring peoples of Ecuador: the indigenous Chachi, speakers of the Cha’palaa language, and Afro-Descendant people, who speak a variety of Spanish. When talking about differences among social groups and categories, a particular sub-type of body-directed gestural practice was salient: using indexical-iconic self-directed gestures as a way to describe other people’s physical bodies or appearances, including references to skin color, hair texture, clothing and ornamentation, and embodiments of carrying objects close to the body. The paper describes the trends seen in the forms and meanings of these gestures in their role here as part of socially categorizing and racializing discourses in the Latin American socio-historical context.

Research on narratives in an Australian language demonstrated surprising facts about speakers’ spatial orientation and knowledge both in the insistent use of morphologically hypertrophied spoken directional terminology and in accompanying gestures. Pursuing comparable phenomena in a Mayan language from the other side of the globe revealed correspondingly complex gestural devices for communicating about location and direction but with very different kinds of support from speech. Evidence from a new sign language, emerging in the same Mayan context, suggests that mechanisms for signing about space both resemble and depart from the gestural practices of the surrounding speech community. In particular, they invoke spatial “frames of reference” not used by speakers to sign about location and direction, and they employ signed “spatial grammar” to express syntactic argument structure.

A considerable body of literature points at parallels between gestural elements and sign language structures. This raises the question to what extent variation in gesture environment may lead to related variation across sign languages, or, mutatis mutandis, to what extent similarities in gesture environment may lead to similarities across (otherwise unrelated) sign languages.

This article will address that question by reviewing a series of studies relating to size and shape specifying (SASS) signs and gestures in signed and spoken languages in West Africa. The review finds that the use of body-based SASS gestures coincides with the use of body-based SASS signs in the sign languages studied, which in turn aligns with (a) restrictions on the number and types of handshapes used in space-based SASS signs, (b) limited use of space-based size depiction in lexical items (Nyst, 2018), and (c) a gap in the repertoire of phonemic handshapes.

I conclude that culture-specific patterning in gesture environment may impact on cross-linguistic variation in SASS morphology and handshape phonology. As such, the gestural environment presents an explanation why SLs may be alike or different, in addition to shared ancestry, language contact, and iconicity.

In Australian Indigenous societies the means for demonstrating kinship-based respect are rich and varied, and mastery of their ideological and contextual dimensions is highly valued and an indication of communicative expertise. Special speech registers, sometimes referred to as ‘mother-in-law’, ‘brother-in-law’, or ‘avoidance’ languages, are one aspect of this complexity. Another dimension of respect is afforded by Australian Indigenous sign languages, used in contexts where speech itself is disallowed as well as in everyday interactions where signing is practical and useful. What is lacking from the majority of accounts of these special semiotic repertoires is an investigation of the ways that speech and communicative actions, such as sign or gesture, may work together in such contexts. Also neglected is the possibility that the articulation of signs and gestures may be modified to indicate a respectful stance towards avoided kin. Drawing on both archival sources and recent fieldwork, this paper delineates some of the articulatory dimensions of signs and gestures used in this domain.