Caroline Nash

University of California, Davis

UC Consortium Conference, Irvine

March 9, 2002

Technology as a Tool in Teaching L2 Gestures in the L2 Classroom

I. Introduction

The function and usage of nonverbal or co-verbal gestures in conversation have not been a primary focus in linguistic studies. Recent research (Webb 1997; Messing 1990, 1996; McNeill 1985, 1992; Kendon 1980, 1988, 1984, 1991; Birdwhistell 1952, 1970) has begun to challenge the traditional view that gestures are meta-linguistic, suggesting that there is no distinct division between language and gesture. However, ethnocentric studies dominate kinesic research, and the postulated rules (from exhaustive studies on American-English speakers) do not apply to the social behavior and organizational structure across languages and cultures. Speakers of languages other than English do not employ American-English gestures when they speak and L2 learners are unaware of the differences in the gestural system and in the concept of the personal sphere of the target language unless the L2 is acquired through interactive and interpersonal conversation while immersed to some degree (yet undefined) in the L2 culture.

Gestures and the concept of the personal sphere play a crucial role in accounting for those mechanisms that are employed in communicating more than is actually said or verbally conveyed in an utterance. We are just as unconscious of the manifestations of our gestural usage as we are of our language usage, and the two systems, language and gesture, function together as one inseparable unit, and indispensable in communicating in any language.

Bachman (1990) presents his framework which incorporates a Pragmatic Competence component. The goal of second language acquisition is to describe and explain not only the performance and acquisition of 2^nd language learners’ linguistic competence, but pragmatic competence as well, which should, in my view, incorporate the gestural system. In a classroom environment, where interaction is confined to at best “teacher talk”, learners of an L2 do not acquire the L2 gestures with the spoken language, and foreign language curriculums do not incorporate the teaching of the non-verbal code. The issue at hand is to determine the value of teaching certain co-verbal gestures in conjunction with linguistic forms. For the purposes of this paper, the following general questions are addressed: How can L2 learners in a classroom environment acquire and master the performance of the L2 gestures, i.e., those gestures that must accompany speech, whether they are regulators (those head and hand gestures that negotiate the turn-taking of the conversation, express speaker-addressee attitude, seek confirmation, etc.) or deictic markers of location, or indexicals such as those hand gestures used with personal pronouns? What is the most effective method of teaching L2 gestures in a classroom setting? Gestures are context-sensitive so for learners of an L2 in a classroom environment, contextualized settings can be created.

This paper presents some of the methods and findings of a study in progress conducted of 1^st and 2^nd year students of French in which certain gestures that accompany language were taught and learned in a classroom setting via the communicative approach. The study reveals interesting features of the systematic dual performance of the verbal and non-verbal systems, but most crucially, the use of technology, specifically, multi-media video clips supplemented by visual stills of individual frames, proved to be indispensable in the learning process in terms of both language input and output.

2. Target Gestures in this Study

1. Category A: Deictic gestures in conjunction with emphatic personal

pronouns (moi, ‘me’; toi, ‘you’; lui ‘him’; etc.) and adverbs

of location (ici, ‘here’; là, ‘there’; là-bas, ‘over there’).

Target Students: 1^st year; 3^rd quarter (French)

When they are first introduced to emphatic pronouns.

Function of 1^st Chapter: Asking and Giving Directions.

2. Category B: The Hand: Turn-holding and silencing the addressee

in French.

3. Category C: Gaze behavior in the turn-taking sequence.

Target Students: 2^nd year + (longitudinal study)

Emphatic personal pronouns in French are very commonly used in spoken discourse, and in conversation, they serve to draw the addressee’s attention to the speaker’s topic as they basically have the meaning, “as for/as far as concerns me/you/her/him”, etc. Examples of various personal emphatic pronouns with DM (gestural Deictic Marker) signalling the topic are as follows:

(1) Moi, je suis de Nîmes.

‘Me, I’m from Nîmes.’

(2) Toi, tu Américaine, d’origine Japonaise…

(R) 13, 2

‘You, you American, of Japanese origin…’

(3) Lui, il n’est pas français.

(R) ^È1^(®)4_¶

‘Him, he’s not French.’

(The finger/hand gestural codes are partially based on Birdwhistell’s (1952, 1970) notational system.)

3. Category A Gestures

3.1. Method

The input is provided, not by actors in scripted roles, but by native speakers engaged in interpersonal and interactive communication in natural contexts. Single stills and frames are captured from the incomprehensible stream of language and visual effects, thus enabling the beginning to intermediate level student to process the language and gestural input.

Accurate proficiency evaluation and analyses of the output of the lingual and gestural forms are performed by the same means, i.e., viewing recordings of classroom interaction and contextual/thematic skits performed by the students which require the verbal performance of the target forms and evaluating the gestural form that obligatorily accompanies the corresponding verbal form.

Input

1. Communicative Approach.

Teach non-verbal code in conjunction with the verbal code

interactively with the students in context.

2. Focus on Form.

Show via images, gestures used in isolation, rules for gestural

structures, spatial dimensions of personal sphere, and video clips

of native speakers using gestures in natural contextual settings.

Output

1. Practical Application. Interaction among students within

a contextualized classroom setting using exercises whereby

students’ names are substituted for the text’s fictional names.

(Emphatic pronouns)

*(Ex.A: Remplacez “Catherine” avec Tonya; “Louis”avec

Rich; “Jessica et Christine” avec Stacy et Alison; “Mark

et Angela” avec Chris et Erin) *(Ex.B: Remplacez

“Sandrine” avec Linh; “Bruno” avec Tom; “Pierre et

Jean-Paul” avec Mike et John).

2. Evaluation. Test for proficiency by creating contextual,

thematic skits which require the verbal performance of

the target forms. Evaluate the gestural form that obligatorily

accompanies the corresponding verbal form recorded on video.

Skit Performance: Context/Theme: Tourists in Paris.

American tourists encounter Parisians in the street, stop to ask for directions,

and recount an event that took place during their stay in Paris to these strangers. Students were instructed to: use the passé composé and imparfait; emphatic

personal pronouns; direct, and indirect object pronouns.

1^st performance of skit: No mention of gestures were made to the students.

2^nd performance of the same skit: Students were told that gestures would be evaluated.

3.2. Results

Results of the 1^st Skit.

I. Emphatic (stressed) pronouns.

1). Performance of gestures: 97% (moi, toi, lui, elle, nous, eux)

72/74 utterances of emphatic pronouns

2). Accuracy of L2 gestural structure: 100%

3). Accuracy of usage of L2 gestural sphere:

i. L2 gestural sphere used with moi and nous

ii. L1 gestural sphere used with toi, lui, elle, eux

(acute arm angle; [-extension]/[-tense])

II. Subject (unstressed) pronouns.

1). Erroneous performance of gestures:

je ‘I’ (unstressed in French à stressed) 37%

il/elle ‘he/she’ (unstressed in French à stressed) 27%

tu ‘you’ (unstressed à stressed) 35%

nous ‘we’ (unstressed à stressed) 43%*

* Most forms of stressed «nous» were articulated and gesticulated at the first element (subject) of the reflexive/pronominal form as in the following examples:

(a) nous nous sommes regardés ‘we looked at each other’

(b) nous nous dépêchions ‘we were hurrying’

(c) nous nous promenions ‘we were taking a walk’

and the direct and indirect object form of the pronoun as in the following examples:

(d) ils nous ont demandé … ‘they asked us…’

(e) vous nous avez donné… ‘you gave us…’

Heavy stress and L2 gesture for the direct and indirect object form of the pronoun ‘me/to me’ were also observed as in the following:

(f) il m’a dit… ‘he told me…’

(g) tu m’as donné… ‘you gave me…’

(h) mon mari m’a frappée… ‘my husband hit me…’

III. Adverbs of location.

1). Performance of gestures:

i. ici ‘here’ 100% (47/47 utterances)

ii. là ‘there’ 82% (76/92 utterances)

iii. là-bas ‘over there’ 100% (21/21 utterances)

2). Accuracy of L2 gestural structure: 100%

3). Accuracy of usage of L2 gestural sphere:

i. L2 gestural sphere used with ici ‘here’ and là-bas ‘over there’

ii. L1 gestural sphere used with là ‘there’

Results of the 2^nd Skit.

There was a significant increase in the usage of emphatic pronouns, as well as an increase in the accompanying gestural display -- 89 utterances of emphatic pronouns of which 88 were accompanied by gesture (99% display), while 78/90 utterances of adverbs of location were accompanied by gestural display (87%).

In regards to the usage of the L1 vs. L2 gestural sphere, very little difference in gestural performance between the two skits was observed. As opposed to what we found in the 1^st skit, in the 2^nd skit the utterances toi, lui, and là were performed in the L2 gestural sphere; however, their performance was exaggerated. The gestures performed in the 1^st skit were much more natural and “unconsciously performed” than those in the 2^nd skit where the students were aware that their gestural performance was being evaluated.

4. Category B Gestures

Category B gestures include those head and hand gestures that regulate and maintain the conversation flow, i.e., gestures that negotiate the turn-taking sequence (taking and yielding the speaker turn and holding speaker turn), convey speaker-addressee attitudes, mark speaker topic, etc., also known as regulators and indexicals. The focus of this longitudinal study whose target students are 2^nd year+, is the hand gesture which functions specifically to hold the turn and silence the addressee in French conversation. Thus, in French conversation, how does the speaker signal that he or she is not yet willing to relinquish his or her turn to an active participant? Further, how do adult L2 learners of French acquire this gestural behavior pattern during the course of communicative interaction in a classroom environment where L2 culture immersion is limited?

A regulator used by the French speaker to signal that it is still his or her turn to speak and that he or she is not yet willing to yield the floor to another participant at a transition relevance place, comprises the index finger vertically placed in between the speaker and the listener with the arm bent at a 45° angle, elbow forward and slightly raised. A variation is the open palm held vertically between the speaker and the listener, the palm facing the listener.

Image 1 illustrates the usage of the first form of the turn-holding gesture in a natural French conversation.

Image 1

a b

c d

[Image 1]

S: (a) Mais, mais en France, en France, le mot <<manga>> c’est

la bande dessinée (b) [addressee interjects to take the turn]

japonaise (c) ET [addressee is silenced] les dessins animés

(c) japonais, donc, tout ce qui est dessein japonais s’est devenu

<< manga >> en français.

S: (a) ‘But, but in France, in France, the word “manga” is [comics

(b) [addressee interjects to take the turn] Japanese]

(‘Japanese comics’) (c) AND [addressee is silenced]

[cartoons (c) Japanese] (‘Japanese cartoons’), so, everything

that’s Japanese cartoons/comics became “manga” in French.

In the preceding example, the addressee, anticipating a turn transition relevance place following the NP “bande dessinée”, and unaware that the speaker was going to qualify the noun with the adjective “japonais” and another NP, interjects to take the turn. However, the speaker silences the addressee at “ET” to hold and thereby maintain her turn at talk.

4.1. Method

Input

1. Interactive communicative exchange while immersed in the L2

culture via video clippings of native speakers engaged in natural

conversation.

2. Grammar translation via short segmented clips and isolated images.

Output

1. Practical Application. Interaction among students within a

contextualized classroom setting. Students (in dyadic pairs)

are recorded discussing/debating the following controversial topics:

1) l’euthanasie (euthanasia); 2) la recherche sur la cellule souche

embryonnaire (embryonic stem cell research); and 3) la tolérance

zéro pour les prêtres pédophiles (zero tolerance for pedophile

priests).

2. Evaluation. (Work in progress – to date, successful application of

regulator observed in some students.)

5. Category C Gestures

Exhaustive studies have been done on the role of “gaze” i.e. its function in talk

interaction and the nature of its behavior in the “turn” of turn-taking in English (Goodwin 1981; Schegloff 1984; Kendon 1967, 1990; Scheflen 1964; Duncan and Fiske 1977, 1985). Certain findings on gaze behavior have been reported and again, the constructed models and posited rules are too often generalized to apply across all languages and cultures.

Although gaze direct functions as a turn-yielding/terminating regulator in SAE, advancing and retracting body movement plays a greater role in the turn-exchange in French. When the French take a turn, they advance their torso forward, and when they are finishing up their speaker turn, they retract (Nash, 2001).

The model proposed by Kendon (1967) accounts for the gaze behavior pattern of SAE speakers:

A speaker looks away at the beginning of his utterance but gazes

steadily toward his addressee as the utterance approaches termination, whereas a hearer at this point of turn-transition, looks away from the speaker as he begins his turn at talk (Kendon 1967).

The following models proposed by Nash (2001) account for both SAE and French gaze behavior patterns and include an additional initial-gaze direct observed in SAE natural conversation which is not a component of Kendon’s model:

SAE:

Speaker gaze pattern in the sequential organization of the turn:

S à GD GA GD / GD GA GD / GD GA GD / GD GA GD / …

Gaze Pattern Rule: (DAD)^*

Addressee gaze pattern in the sequential organization of the turn:

A à GD GD GD / GD GD GD / GD GD GD / GD GD GD / …

Gaze Pattern Rule: (DDD)^*

French:

Speaker gaze pattern in the sequential organization of the turn:

S à GD^adv GD^ret / GD^adv GD^ret / GD^adv GD^ret / GD^adv GD^ret / …

Gaze Pattern Rule: (D^advD^ret)^*

Addressee gaze pattern in the sequential organization of the turn:

A à GD^ret GD^adv / GD^ret GD^adv / GD^ret GD^ret / GD^ret GD^adv / …

Gaze Pattern Rule: (D^retD^adv)^*

5.1. Method

Input

1. Interactive communicative exchange while immersed in the L2

culture via video clippings of native speakers engaged in natural

conversation.

2. Grammar translation via short segmented clips and isolated images.

Output

1. Practical Application. Interaction among students within a

contextualized classroom setting. Students select one literary work

to discuss in dyads.

2. Evaluation. (Work in progress – to date, “natural” application of

gaze behavior has not been successfully achieved.)

6. Conclusion

In this first study, 1st year students successfully acquired and systematically produced their L2 Category A hand gestures by instruction using the communicative approach with subsequent explications and focus on gestural form using technology; however, they display the gestures in their L1/C1 gestural sphere. Thus far based on my observations and the evidence gathered from my data, I believe that the usage of the L2 spatial domain is not acquired or learned in a classroom environment because it is culture-specific. It appears to me at this point in my work, that gaze behavior is not acquired or at least is L1/C1 sensitive and very difficult to acquire by adult language learners. Hence, I propose that the Category A gestures possess the features [+language]/[-culture], while the Category B gestures possess the features [+language]/[+culture], and finally, the Category C gestures possess the features [-language]/+culture].

Gaze behavior patterns that regulate turn-taking and turn-yielding can be taught using the proposed models; however, I do not believe they will be a productive feature in the L2 learner’s language–gestural reperatoire for the following reasons: personal boundaries, or the personal sphere is culturally-predetermined and defined; therefore, speakers of an L2 will inevitably possess as an inherent quality, the concept and perception of their own L1/C1 personal sphere. Since personal sphere is directly related to the gestural sphere, the usage of the gestural sphere cannot be learned by L2 speakers. The reason for the non-acquisition of gaze behavior is that it relates directly to the personal and gestural sphere, as gaze behavior penetrates the personal space of the interlocutor.

In other studies of acquisition of pragmatic competence such as illocutionary acts, it has been proposed that the ideal method for research would be to collect and compare samples of the illocutionary acts performed in the interlanguage, illocutionary acts performed by native speakers of the target language, and the same illocutionary act performed by learners in their L1. Unless we have an adequate sampling of data of L1 and L2 gestural patterns available, the gestural interlanguage will be impossible to describe. So again, we need to collect data cross-linguistically as there is very little available.

Technology has provided us with perhaps for the time-being, the interlanguage of gestures. My intent today was to show that in a classroom environment, gestures can be taught and learned and that multi-media technology is an invaluable tool in the teaching and learning process. The foregoing is merely a first study and perhaps a post-hoc interpretation. But I reiterate, that the goal of second language acquisition is to describe and explain not only the performance and acquisition of 2^nd language learners’ linguistic competence, but pragmatic competence as well, which in my view, should incorporate the gestural system. Mehrabian conducted his well-known studies in communication from which he concluded that in achieving communication, only 7% of communication takes place through the meaning of the words uttered. Many other studies have revealed similar results. Thus, if most of our communicative intent is manifested in our non-verbal competence, as it is so claimed, then it would behoove us to incorporate this very significant gestural component into models of language teaching and learning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Argyle, M. and Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Armstrong, Stokoe, & Wilcox. (1995). Gesture and the nature of language.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bachman, Lyle F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Balkan (1970). In Cummins, J. Bilingualism, Language Proficiency, and

Metalinguistic Development. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Bally, Charles. (1926). L’expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de

solidarité dans les langues indo-européennes. Festshrift Gauchat.

Aarau (ed.).

Beattie, G. W. (1978b). Sequential Temporal Pattern of Speech and Gaze in

Dialogue. Semiotica 23:29-52.

Beattie, G. W. (1979). Planning Units in Spontaneous Speech: Some Evidence

from Hesitations in Speech and Speaker Gaze Direction in Conversation.

Linguistics 17:61-78.

Birdwhistell R. L. (1952). Introduction to Kinesics: an annotation system for

analysis of body motion and gesture. Louisville: University of Louisville 8,

Kentucky.

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context: essays on body motion

communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bühler, Karl. (1982). The Deictic Field of Language and Deictic Words, in

Speech, Place, and Action, ed. by R. Jarvella and W. Klein,

John Wiley and Sons Ltd. pp.9-30.

Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980a). Theoretical Bases of Communicative

Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied

Linguistics 1:1-47.

Duncan S., Jr. and Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-To-Face Interaction: Research,

Methods and Theory. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Publishers.

Duncan S., Jr. and Fiske, D. W. (1985). Interaction structure and strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ekman, P. & W. Friesen. (1972). Hand movements. The Journal of Communication 22:353-374.

Goodwin, Charles. (1981). Conversational Organization. Interaction between

Speakers and Hearers. New York/Toronto/Sydney/San Francisco:

Academic Press.

Hall, Edward T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology. 9:83-108.

Hoffman, Charlotte. (1991). An Introduction to Bilingualism. London/New York:

Longman, Inc.

Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of Gaze-Direction in Social Interaction.

Acta Psychologica 26:22-63.

Kendon, A. (1988). How gestures can become like words. In Poyatos (ed.),

Cross-Cultural Perspectives in Non-Verbal Communication. Toronto:

C.J. Hogrefe.

Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting Interaction. Patterns of behavior in focused

encounters [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 7]. Cambridge/New

York/Port Chester/Melbourne/Sydney: Cambridge University Press.

LaFrance, M. and Mayo C. (1976). Racial Differences in Gaze Behavior During

Conversation: Two Systematic Observational Studies. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 33:547-552.

Lambert, W. & Tucker, G. (1972). Bilingual education of children:

The St. Lambert experiment. MA: Newbury House.

Lindenfield, Jacqueline. (1971). Verbal and Non-Verbal Elements in Discourse.

Semiotica 8:223-233.

McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal. Psychological Review

92.2:350-371.

McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Messing, Lynn. (1990). Dissertation. Chapter 4: Non-verbal communication.

Morris, Collett, Marsh, and O’Shaughnessy. (1979). Gestures: their origins and

distributions. New York: Stein and Day.

Nash, Caroline. (2001). Language and Gestures in Conversation: A Cross-Cultural

Study of the Usage and Functions of Regulators and Illustrators in French,

Japanese, and American-English. Dissertation.

Omaggio Hadley, Alice. (2001). Teaching Language in Context.

MA: Henle & Henle.

Palij, J. & Homel, P. (1987). Bilingualism and Language Policy: Four Case

Studies. Childhood Bilingualism: Aspects of Linguistic, Cognitive, and

Social Development. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Poyatos, F. (1983). Language and nonverbal systems in the structure of

face-to-face interaction. Language and Communication. 3:129-140.

Romaine, Suzanne (1995). Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics

for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language

50:696-735.

Sapir, E. (1951). The unconscious patterning of behavior in society. In D. G.

Mandelbaum, ed., Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language,

Culture and Personality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,

pp. 544-559.

Savignon, Sandra J. (1972). Communicative Competence: An Experiment in

Foreign Language Teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum

Development.

Scheflen, Albert E. (1964). The Significance of Posture in Communication

Systems. Psychiatry 27:316-331.

Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some gestures’ relation to talk. In J. M. Atkinson and

J. Heritage, eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation

Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 266-296.

Wierzbicka, Anna. (1992). Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations . New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wylie, Laurence. (1981). Contemporary French Culture and Society (Société et

culture de la France contemporaine), Georges Santoni, ed.

Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 1-63.

Yngve, V. H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the sixth

regional meeting Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic

Society, pp.567-577.