theoretical issues Flashcards
define social cognition
mental processes used to make sense of the world
how we process info from the environment and understand them
define cues of NV
specific things within the environemnt which we use to make inferences about others, determine how we rlate and interact with others
ie expressions, eye gaze and beh of others
define inferences in NV
traits/dispositions/goals/intentions
make initial inferences which can alter based on experience
BUT gernerally determines the character of others and how act to them/around them
proffitt 2006
economy of action
organisms must take in more enegry than they expend in order to grow, reproduce and survive
bonds with others help us conseerve enert
network of familairity, joint attention and shared goals
do not need to expend as much energy when shared amongst a group
hand movements vs hand gestures
all hand gestures are hand movements
not all hand movements are gestures
kendon 1983 hand gesture/movement distinction
can categorise in terms of degree of lexicalisation
extent to which the movement is ‘word-like’ and communicate to others
spectrum of hand movements
high lexicalisation - symbolic gestures
mid: conversational gestures
- lexical movements > lexicalisation > motor movements
low lexicalisation - adaptors
define symbolic gestures
/emblems
hold specific and conventional meanings that are clearly communicative
specific to cultures (ekman)
ie thumbs up
define adaptors
not symbollic
no clear communicative function
meaning may be conveyed in terms of ones internal state ie nervousness
define iconic gestures (conversational)
illustrators/representational
concrete referents
illustrate what is being said in conjunction with verbal encoding
neither entirely devoid of meaning nor important within conversation - not likely to add anything new
temporally coordinated to speech - pre or post speech may determine if conscious or subconscious, and its role in conversation
define beat gestures (conversational)
single or repetitive movements - rhythmically entrained to speech
motorically simple but do not represent speech content (low lexicalisation)
define regulators
indicate conversational flow
ie when want to say something / to indicate turn taking in conversation
define dietic gesutres
spatial
metaphoric/abstract
convey direction of movement
allow for joint attention ie capture a concrete obect via pointng
or indicate the passage of time ie left to right
theories of hand getures and conversational meanin
communicative function hyp (birdwhistekl 1970)
atavistic vestige of evolution (hewes 1973)
dissipation of tension (kauss et al 1991)
define communicative function hyp
birdwhistell 1970
certain getures may function as the structural equivallent of certain linguistic forms
used as substitutes to spoken language
- USED TO CONVEY MEANING TO THE LISTENER NOT TO HELP THE SPEAKER
how can you investigate how helpful a gesture is to speech communication?
compare conversational gesture visibility nd see if influences understanding compared to beat/low lexical
cohen and randall 1973
FOR CFH
male undergrads in face to face or intercom
explain directions on campus - vary difficulty
sig increase in iconic gestures when explain directions in face to face>intercom
- increased freq = used to facilitate understanding
prob cohen and randall 1973
FOR CFH
did it improve understanding? - comprehension of listener not measured
could it be due to a change in speech? - more descriptive in intercom?
some gestures still performed in intercom: habit? social facilitatin?
social facilitation arguement against CFH
zajonc 1965
gesture increase because the presence of others heightens arousal, not to facilitate understanding
may find more difficult to form speefch
- tendency to gaze away when hesitant, pauses filled by gestures thought to represent planning of semantics
krauss et al 1995
AGAINST CFH
METHOD
3 exp: to what extent to spontaneous gestural accompaniments enhance communcation?
- encode task - describe stimuli face to face or intercom ie abstract designs, synth sounds, tea
- decode task - videos to new pps, half hear and see, half only hear
- - measure communication accuracy (rate select correct answer_
krauss et al 1996
AGAINST CFH
RESULTS
encode and decode no diff between face to face or interface
only decode of tea dlightly increase in face to face
- being able to perceive gesture notinclude message efficacy and not because less gesuring
- not redundant but may be more important for communicator than listener
problems with looking at gesures face to face vs intercom
not controlling for how verbal expressions might influence
alibali health and maters 2001
FOR CFH
METHOD
do speakers use diff gestures when potential to aid communication than when they dont? animated cartoon (s+T) to describe to other with screen or face to face measure representational or beat freq across conditions
alibali health and maters 2001
FOR CFH
RESULTS
only rpresenttions gestures produced at higher rate in face to face
75% iconic, 16% metaphorical 8% spatial dietic
beat/non narrative no diff across conditinos
no words, quality of lanuage no change across conditions
alibali health and maters 2001
FOR CFH
PROBS
still use representational in screen
- habit?
- imagined interactions?
- social facilitation?
- help communicator in some way?
increase in face to face may only be because they are reinforced by the listener ie nodding
alibali health and maters 2001
FOR CFH
alt for representational
GESTURES MAY ONLY BE COMMUNICATIVE WHEN SUPPLEMENT OR MISMATCHED WITH SPEECH
- gestures and speech = integrated unit dependent on speakers intentions
reduction in representational in screen coincides with decreased rate of speecg, increase in filled pauses and increased dysfluency - play a role in speech production ie help conceptualise message or help lexical accesss
alibali health and maters 2001
FOR CFH
alt for beats:
beats slight inrease in face to face but only when bound to non narrative speech units (ie cam movement)
mcneill 1992 - rep may accompany narrative and beats non narative to help the listener recog different parts of the communication
tuite 1993 vs mcneill 1992 hyp on representational vs beats
tuite - beats -rhythmical pulse hyp - beats are representational without a semantic overlay
mcneil - beats are non narrative and representational are narrative
krauss, morrell-samuels and colasante 1991
for and against CFH
METHOD
- view gestures - what words accompany them
- read gestures interpretations - what words accompanied them?
- recog gestures prev seel with and without speech
- assign gesture to semantic categories based on g+speech or g alone
krauss, morrell-samuels and colasante 1991
for and against CFH
RESULTS
- view gesture - can discriminate lexical affiliates of differential gestures above chance
- read interpretations - jjudge gesture affiliates based on interpretation
- recog prev seen - accuract prev above chance but worse when speech not accompany
- judge gestural category when speech is accessible based on paralinguistic content of speech
- gesture alone conveys little info
- conversation gestures may convey semantic info directly related to speech but without this, little info anf imprecise - more likely to help the speaker
graham and argyle 1975
for CFH
speaker
speakers to desribe abstract line drawing
half with gestures half prohibited
accruact less accurate when prohibited
graham and argyle 1975 probs
prohibitino may have interfered with capacity to speak fluently - ie white bear
-o alter semantic verbalisation
atavistic vestige or evolution theory
hewes 1973
gestures once conveyed meaning when speech limited in ancestors but not fully effective
- helped in speech development
dissipation of tension hyp
krauss et al 1991
not meaningful - relieve tension so can speak fluently
** but do seem to have some meaning
likely link with speech and gestures
gestures do convey meaning
but tightly linked to speech
meaning likely illusory - based on interpretation
lexical retrieval hypothesis
rauscher et al 1996
speaking
gestures play a rol ein the retrieval of words from lexical memory
enhance acess to obscure/unfamiliar words
involved in generating surface forms of utternaces
krauss et al 1991
lexical retrieval
iconic gesture derive from spatially encoded knowledge
facilitate access to lexical entries incorporated with their syntactic and semanitic info
alt to krauss et al 1991
lexical retrieval
gestures derive from non propositional representation (imagery>symbolism) in wm and assist the retrieval of forms
information packaging hypothesis
kita 2000
thinking
gestures represent the conceptual packaging of info before it is coded into its linguistic form
involved in conceptuaal planning of the message to be verbalised (preverbal)
assists speaker in packaging spatial material into appropriate units for verbalisation
gestures encode and organise spatial and perceptual info
levelt 1989 lexical retrieval hyp
- gestures conceptualise a communicative intention - 2. form preverbal message
preverbal transformed into a linguistic structure - entry into mental lexicon and select itsems corresponding to semantics, forms a surface structure - surface structure processed by phonological encoder into articulatory plan = speech
chawla and krauss 1994
lexical retrieval
in rehearsed/preplanned narratives - 72% pauses fall within grammatical junctures
only 40% fall in grammatical junctures when spontaneous
- reflect non juncture pauses when problems in lexical access
Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
METHOD
41 undergrads 2x3 within subj
x2= gesture or no gresture (elextrodes to feet or hands)
x3 = free speech, obscure (use as many odd words as poss) or constraint (avoid using words with certain letter)
retell cartoon of road runner to partner
Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
DVS
transcribed speech: type ie spatial dysfluency ie pauses - grammatical or not complexity of speech coded gestures
Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
FINDINGS - gestures and speech constraints
spatial speech increase gestures
when restrained, spatiial speech more dysfluent
when speech is obscure/constrained, and when gestures restrained, less filled pauses at grammatical junctures (more intraclausal dys)
obscure/constraint make lexicalisation harder - use longer words, more diverse and complex verbal output
constraint reduces gestures for both spatial and nonspatial speech
Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
intraclausal dysfluencies
thought to be assoc with problems in lexical access, retrieval and search
Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
FINDINGS - speech fluency
gestures increase verbal fluency
obscure/constraint decrease verbal fluency
gestures impact spatial>nonspatial
- more dysfluent in spatial when restrained
alt explanation for Rauscher, krauss and chen 1996
lexical retrieval
finding that restraint and speech complexity increased intraclausal dysfluencies
gestural restraint may require cog effort - not srapped down - had to actively stop self
- dysfluencies may be a rflection of diminished processing capacity
BUT not specific to spatial content where gestures (a spatial movement) would likely interfere with this specific proces
- that influences non spatial suggests not just a limited cog capacity, but something else going on **specifically the role of gestures on verbal fluency
frick-horbury and gutentag 1998
for lexical retrieval
METHOD
2x2 between groups
x2= hand restrict of control
x2= high or low verbal scores (natural ability)
- pps given 20 definitions and asked to provide target word (TOT)
DV: lexical retrieval and free recall
hyp: if lexical - gestures increase TOT because facilitates lexical access
frick-horbury and gutentag 1998
for lexical retrieval
RESULTS
lex retrieval and free recall better when unrestricted gesture and high verbal ability
NO INTERACTION
unrestricted > restricted
high verbal ability>low VA
frick-horbury and gutentag 1998
for lexical retrieval
possible explanations
- gestures aid lex retrieval, reduce TOT states
may act as rhetorical retrieval cue
motor memory assoc with lexical access
pine bird and kirk 2007
for lexical retieval (ALT ALIBALI)
METHOD
TOT children
pic naming task
restrained or not
compare lexical acces
pine bird and kirk 2007
for lexical retieval (ALT ALIBALI)
RESULTS
lexical access reduce when restrained - less pics correct
frequency of TOT not differ between conditions
BUT gestures facilitate faster TOT resolve (+more correct) - facilitate lexical access
no sig diff in amount of speech but did not control for quality
pine bird and kirk 2007
for lexical retieval (ALT ALIBALI)
RESULTS PROBS
self adaptor gestures (comforting) highest, especially for correct TOT resolves - cant be explained by authors where icionic always believed to be most important
ravizza 2003
lexical retrieval
mechanisms
motor system may be the mechanism wihch may facilitate lexical access
help activate linguistic system
pine bird and kirk vs ravizza motor system hyp
pine - there does seem to exist a different in the extent to which different gestures faciliatate lexical access
- more in depth than just ~any~ motor movement
goldin-meadau 2003
lexical retrieval mechanisms
gestures reduce cog resources?
more getures when find difficult - gestures free up cog resources
prob goldin-meadau 2003 mechanisms
argued more likely gestures have direct access to mental lexicon by conveying target word in visuo-spatial format
deruiter 2000 lexical retrieval mechanisms
iconic gestures relate to content of lexical affiliate
maintain link between word and visuo-spatial image of it
ie arc = bridge
maintain spatio-dynamic features of the lexical affiliate
alibali kita young
info packaging hypothesis
method
gestures facilitate thought - help speaker packacge conceptual plan into units for verbalisation
- are gestures involved in concept plan or generation of surface forms?
piaget conservation
- explain (conceptual demand) or describe (lexical demands) judgement
alibali kita young
info packaging hypothesis
HYP
if lexical - no diff between tasks in gestures
if info pack - diff between explain and describe - more gestures rep physcial properties and convey info not expressed in speech
alibali kita young
info packaging hypothesis
TYPES OF GESTURES
substantiative (convey info on dimension ie shape) vs dietic gestures (convey info on JA ie pointing)
+
redundant (already in speech) vs nonredundant (adds new info)
alibali kita young
info packaging hypothesis
RESULTS
surface forms of utterances comparable across tasks
more substantiative/rep and more non-redundant gestures in explanation - spontaneous gestures involved in conceptual planning
more gesture-speech mistmatch in explanation condition - provides info but cant verbalise
alibali kita young
info packaging hypothesis
RESULTS PROB
still cant disprove lexical retrival
- may still occur although unlikely to be the only function of gestures
lexical retrieval re-explained by info packagin
LR: more substantiative gestures when speech restricted
- IP: restricted speech requires speaker to explore alt means of packaging info trying to be conveyed
LR: restricting G reduce speech rate and increase non-juncture dysfluencies assoc with lexical access
- IP: prohibiting makes conceptualisation of spatial info more difficult
LR: asynchrony between gesture onset + lexical affiliate increases for less familiar lexical items
- IP: familiarity with lexical items may also corr with reduced ability to accurately conceptualise the info being expressed
- delay speech as must explore alt ways to packagin info
LR: more substantiative gestures when speech restricted
IP: restricted speech requires speaker to explore alt means of packaging info trying to be conveyed
LR: restricting G reduce speech rate and increase non-juncture dysfluencies assoc with lexical access
IP: prohibiting makes conceptualisation of spatial info more difficult
LR: asynchrony between gesture onset + lexical affiliate increases for less familiar lexical items
IP: familiarity with lexical items may also corr with reduced ability to accurately conceptualise the info being expressed
- delay speech as must explore alt ways to packagin info
kita + ozyurek 2003 STUDY 1
interface hypothesis
hyp
gestural expression differs across cultures
- diff lang shaped by diff linguistic formulations and spatial properties
gestures both conceptual and lexical but formulation is based on linguistic forms
- rules of speech constrain gestures
kita + ozyurek 2003 STUDY 1
interface hypothesis
METHOD
USA, UK turkish and japanese speakers watch sylvester and tweety
- describe to partner free to gesture
coing: arc/swing, straight, left to right
- describe cat swinging from post to ledge
kita + ozyurek 2003 STUDY 1
interface hypothesis
RESULTS
all english use swing (arc and directional)
japanese and turkish use seperate gestures to encode motion and direction STUDY 1
kita + ozyurek 2003 STUDY 1
interface hypothesis
EXPLANATION
swing not part of japanese or turkish language
- use diff gestures to explain - not arc
english have “swing” which encodes both in one
kita + ozyurek 2003 STUDY 2
interface hypothesis
METHOD
act of rolling own the hill
- japanese use word with two connectives to explain the manner and trajectory - two diff gestures
- english “roll” - one main gesture
