Acceptability of at-issue co-speech gestures under contrastive focus

The status of content-bearing co-speech gestures, i.e., gestural adjuncts co-occurring with the verbal expressions they adjoin to, has recently become a matter of debate in formal semantics and pragmatics (Ebert & Ebert 2014; Ebert 2017; Tieu et al. 2017; 2018; Esipova 2018; Schlenker 2018; Zlog...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Maria Esipova
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Open Library of Humanities 2019-01-01
Series:Glossa
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/635
id doaj-32dcde5b950748c19f8088747d4e5699
record_format Article
spelling doaj-32dcde5b950748c19f8088747d4e56992021-09-02T09:29:56ZengOpen Library of HumanitiesGlossa2397-18352019-01-014110.5334/gjgl.635316Acceptability of at-issue co-speech gestures under contrastive focusMaria Esipova0New York University, 10 Washington Place, New YorkThe status of content-bearing co-speech gestures, i.e., gestural adjuncts co-occurring with the verbal expressions they adjoin to, has recently become a matter of debate in formal semantics and pragmatics (Ebert & Ebert 2014; Ebert 2017; Tieu et al. 2017; 2018; Esipova 2018; Schlenker 2018; Zlogar & Davidson 2018). The general tendency has been to claim that co-speech gestures by default make not-at-issue contributions, however, the existing analyses differ in whether they in principle allow for at-issue interpretations of co-speech gestures and, if yes, in how much cost such at-issue interpretations can incur. In this study I use an acceptability judgement task to investigate the acceptability of at-issue interpretations of co-speech gestures forced by contrastive focus, as well as some factors that can potentially affect that acceptability. I conclude that while the overall results are in principle compatible with any analysis that posits a (strong) bias against at-issue interpretations of co-speech gestures, further inspection of individual variation in judgement patterns allows us to argue against analyses in which the level of such bias is fixed across speakers. In particular, the variation data can be taken as evidence against the analysis of co-speech gestures as Pottsian (2005) supplements akin to appositives (Ebert & Ebert 2014; Ebert 2017). As for the factors that can potentially affect the acceptability of at-issue interpretations of co-speech gestures under contrastive focus, neither the type of content encoded by the gesture, nor emphatic production of co-speech gestures have been found to have an effect.https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/635co-speech gestures(not)-at-issuenesscontrastive focusacceptability judgementsvariation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Maria Esipova
spellingShingle Maria Esipova
Acceptability of at-issue co-speech gestures under contrastive focus
Glossa
co-speech gestures
(not)-at-issueness
contrastive focus
acceptability judgements
variation
author_facet Maria Esipova
author_sort Maria Esipova
title Acceptability of at-issue co-speech gestures under contrastive focus
title_short Acceptability of at-issue co-speech gestures under contrastive focus
title_full Acceptability of at-issue co-speech gestures under contrastive focus
title_fullStr Acceptability of at-issue co-speech gestures under contrastive focus
title_full_unstemmed Acceptability of at-issue co-speech gestures under contrastive focus
title_sort acceptability of at-issue co-speech gestures under contrastive focus
publisher Open Library of Humanities
series Glossa
issn 2397-1835
publishDate 2019-01-01
description The status of content-bearing co-speech gestures, i.e., gestural adjuncts co-occurring with the verbal expressions they adjoin to, has recently become a matter of debate in formal semantics and pragmatics (Ebert & Ebert 2014; Ebert 2017; Tieu et al. 2017; 2018; Esipova 2018; Schlenker 2018; Zlogar & Davidson 2018). The general tendency has been to claim that co-speech gestures by default make not-at-issue contributions, however, the existing analyses differ in whether they in principle allow for at-issue interpretations of co-speech gestures and, if yes, in how much cost such at-issue interpretations can incur. In this study I use an acceptability judgement task to investigate the acceptability of at-issue interpretations of co-speech gestures forced by contrastive focus, as well as some factors that can potentially affect that acceptability. I conclude that while the overall results are in principle compatible with any analysis that posits a (strong) bias against at-issue interpretations of co-speech gestures, further inspection of individual variation in judgement patterns allows us to argue against analyses in which the level of such bias is fixed across speakers. In particular, the variation data can be taken as evidence against the analysis of co-speech gestures as Pottsian (2005) supplements akin to appositives (Ebert & Ebert 2014; Ebert 2017). As for the factors that can potentially affect the acceptability of at-issue interpretations of co-speech gestures under contrastive focus, neither the type of content encoded by the gesture, nor emphatic production of co-speech gestures have been found to have an effect.
topic co-speech gestures
(not)-at-issueness
contrastive focus
acceptability judgements
variation
url https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/635
work_keys_str_mv AT mariaesipova acceptabilityofatissuecospeechgesturesundercontrastivefocus
_version_ 1721177085169369088