S ?”frozen” gestural forms that have conventional PF-04418948 biological activity meanings. Although all cultures seem to have gestural emblems, cultures vary both in the specific emblems they use (including notorious cases where an everyday emblem in one culture is grounds for fisticuffs in another) and in the size of their emblem inventories (McNeill 1992; Morris et al. 1979), with languages such as Italian boasting an especially rich set (Kendon 2004). In this way, emblems are analogous to ideophones in spoken languages ?most, if not all, languages have at least some, but they vary dramatically in how prominent a role they play in the language. Interestingly, Pan-RAS-IN-1 web gesture itself has been shown to have a special affinity with ideophonic language (Dingemanse 2013, Kita 1997, Kunene 1965). Further, there are gestural forms that seem to be linked to particular communicative functions across all known cultures and languages, for example, using the head to affirm and negate ( Jakobson, 1972, Kendon 2002), or using the index finger to point (Liszkowski et al. 2012). But, within these generalizations, there is also more fine-grained texture. For example, some communities use a side-to-side headshake for negation, whereas others use a backwards head toss (Morris et al. 1979); and some communities, in addition to using the index finger to point, have conventions for pointing with the head and face (as discussed by Sherzer 1973, Enfield, 2009; Cooperrider and N��ez 2012; and contributors to Kita 2003). Tentatively, it seems that negation and pointing vary areally, not language by language ?pointing with the lips appears to be quite common across Central America, for example. But gesture may also vary in direct relation to patterns in the linguistic structure, strengthening the argument that the two form an integrated communicative system. One demonstration of this phenomenon is in how people speak and gesture about motion events. Languages vary in how they linguistically encode the path and manner of motion events (Talmy 2000), and the gestures that speakers of a given language use have been shown to reflect this variation. Speakers of Japanese and Turkish (versus English) are unlikely to tightly package information about both path and manner within a linguistic phrase. Likewise, when gesturing about motion events, speakers of Japanese and Turkish (versus English) are unlikely to encode both path and manner within a single gesture (Kita and y ek 2003). A second area where gesture may vary in relation to linguistic structure is in the expression of spatial frames of reference. Speakers of languages that preferentially talk about spatial relationships using cardinal directions (east, west, north, and south) also seem to have a tendency to preserve cardinal relationships in their gestures (Haviland 1993; Levinson 2003). In these and other cases, it remains an interesting and open question as to whetherLang Linguist Compass. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.Abner et al.Pagethere is a causal relationship between linguistic differences and gestural differences (or vice versa) or whether differences in these two communicative channels reflect a third, as yet undiscovered, underlying factor. One area where gestural typology may prove especially useful is in explaining areal typologies of signed languages. Because users of signed languages are frequently deaf and without natural access to a spoken language, the emergence and evolution of signed languages can proceed in.S ?”frozen” gestural forms that have conventional meanings. Although all cultures seem to have gestural emblems, cultures vary both in the specific emblems they use (including notorious cases where an everyday emblem in one culture is grounds for fisticuffs in another) and in the size of their emblem inventories (McNeill 1992; Morris et al. 1979), with languages such as Italian boasting an especially rich set (Kendon 2004). In this way, emblems are analogous to ideophones in spoken languages ?most, if not all, languages have at least some, but they vary dramatically in how prominent a role they play in the language. Interestingly, gesture itself has been shown to have a special affinity with ideophonic language (Dingemanse 2013, Kita 1997, Kunene 1965). Further, there are gestural forms that seem to be linked to particular communicative functions across all known cultures and languages, for example, using the head to affirm and negate ( Jakobson, 1972, Kendon 2002), or using the index finger to point (Liszkowski et al. 2012). But, within these generalizations, there is also more fine-grained texture. For example, some communities use a side-to-side headshake for negation, whereas others use a backwards head toss (Morris et al. 1979); and some communities, in addition to using the index finger to point, have conventions for pointing with the head and face (as discussed by Sherzer 1973, Enfield, 2009; Cooperrider and N��ez 2012; and contributors to Kita 2003). Tentatively, it seems that negation and pointing vary areally, not language by language ?pointing with the lips appears to be quite common across Central America, for example. But gesture may also vary in direct relation to patterns in the linguistic structure, strengthening the argument that the two form an integrated communicative system. One demonstration of this phenomenon is in how people speak and gesture about motion events. Languages vary in how they linguistically encode the path and manner of motion events (Talmy 2000), and the gestures that speakers of a given language use have been shown to reflect this variation. Speakers of Japanese and Turkish (versus English) are unlikely to tightly package information about both path and manner within a linguistic phrase. Likewise, when gesturing about motion events, speakers of Japanese and Turkish (versus English) are unlikely to encode both path and manner within a single gesture (Kita and y ek 2003). A second area where gesture may vary in relation to linguistic structure is in the expression of spatial frames of reference. Speakers of languages that preferentially talk about spatial relationships using cardinal directions (east, west, north, and south) also seem to have a tendency to preserve cardinal relationships in their gestures (Haviland 1993; Levinson 2003). In these and other cases, it remains an interesting and open question as to whetherLang Linguist Compass. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.Abner et al.Pagethere is a causal relationship between linguistic differences and gestural differences (or vice versa) or whether differences in these two communicative channels reflect a third, as yet undiscovered, underlying factor. One area where gestural typology may prove especially useful is in explaining areal typologies of signed languages. Because users of signed languages are frequently deaf and without natural access to a spoken language, the emergence and evolution of signed languages can proceed in.
