title: Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language.
abstract: Current conceptions of human language include a gestural component in the communicative event. However, determining how the linguistic and gestural signals are distinguished, how each is structured, and how they interact still poses a challenge for the construction of a comprehensive model of language. This study attempts to advance our understanding of these issues with evidence from sign language. The study adopts McNeill's criteria for distinguishing gestures from the linguistically organized signal, and provides a brief description of the linguistic organization of sign languages. Focusing on the subcategory of iconic gestures, the paper shows that signers create iconic gestures with the mouth, an articulator that acts symbiotically with the hands to complement the linguistic description of objects and events. A new distinction between the mimetic replica and the iconic symbol accounts for the nature and distribution of iconic mouth gestures and distinguishes them from mimetic uses of the mouth. Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth is a salient feature of human language, regardless of whether the primary linguistic modality is oral or manual. Speakers gesture with their hands, and signers gesture with their mouths.
authors.forename: Wendy
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Sandler
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Feb 15;102(7):2661-5
references.pmid: 15699343
references.citation: Eur J Neurosci. 2004 Jan;19(1):190-202
references.pmid: 14750977
references.citation: J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2005 Winter;10(1):3-37
references.pmid: 15585746
references.citation: Language (Baltim). 2005 Jun;81(2):301-344
references.pmid: 22223926
references.citation: Nature. 1998 Nov 19;396(6708):228
references.pmid: 9834030
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2001 Nov;12(6):516-22
references.pmid: 11760141
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 8;104(19):8184-9
references.pmid: 17470779
references.citation: Science. 2000 Apr 21;288(5465):527-31
references.pmid: 10775113
references.citation: Brain. 1996 Apr;119 ( Pt 2):593-609
references.pmid: 8800951
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1978 Sep;24(3):253-7
references.pmid: 704285
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1986 Sep;115(3):211-35
references.pmid: 2428917
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2007 Jan;10(1):121-5
references.pmid: 17181709
references.citation: Science. 2002 Nov 22;298(5598):1569-79
references.pmid: 12446899
references.citation: Trends Neurosci. 1998 May;21(5):188-94
references.pmid: 9610880
references.citation: Sci Am. 1960 Sep;203:89-96
references.pmid: 14402211
references.citation: Interact Stud. 2008;9(1):133-153
references.pmid: 22448152
references.citation: Lang Speech. 2009;52(Pt 2-3):287-314
references.pmid: 19624033
references.citation: Language (Baltim). 1997 Mar;73(1):18-57
references.pmid: 38974781
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2005 Apr;28(2):105-24; discussion 125-67
references.pmid: 16201457
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 1995 Oct;57(4):965-8
references.pmid: 7573061