User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse





How different iconic gestures add to the communication of PWA

There are no MPG-Authors available
External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available

van Nispen, K., van de Sandt-Koenerman, M., Sekine, K., Krahmer, E., & Rose, M. (2016). How different iconic gestures add to the communication of PWA. Talk presented at the 7th Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies. Paris, France. 2016-07-18 - 2016-07-22.

Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-002C-0BEE-2
Introduction Gestures can convey information in addition to speech (B eattie et al., 1999). In the absence of conventions on their meaning (McNeill, 2000), people probably rely on iconicity, the mapping between form and meaning, to construct and derive meaning from gesture (Perniss et al., 2010). This informative function of gesture seems useful for people with aphasia (PWA). As a result of brain damage, PWA may encounter severe language production difficulties (Bastiaanse, 2010), and resulting communication disability. Although PWA can use gestures, some use them differently from non -­‐ brain -­‐ damaged people (NBDP) (Sekine et al., 2013a; Sekine et al., 2013b). Van Nispen et al. (2015) have shown that, when having to depict objects silently, PWA rely more on gestures that depict the shape of an object as compared to NBDP, who more often show how they would use an object. The present study aimed to find out how PWA use these various iconic representation techniques in semi -­‐ spontaneous conversation and how important these gestures are for their communication. Methods Participants. Vi deos of semi -­‐ structured interviews with 42 PWA and 9 NBDP from AphasiaBank (MacWhinney et al., 2011) were analyzed for the gestures used. These were coded in two classifications: a) type of iconic gesture and b) communicative value. In addition to the labe ls identified by Sekine et al. (2013b), we specified five representation techniques: handling, enact, object, shape (see Van Nispen et al., 2015b) and path (see Cocks et al., 2013). Based on Colletta et al. (2009) we determined the communicative value of e ach gesture. The information in gesture was coded as: ‘Conveys information.....’ 1) similar to information in speech, 2) additional to speech, and 3) that is absent in speech and essential for understanding the communicative message (see van Nispen et al., 2015a). Results Our preliminary results indicate no differences for the use of different iconic gestures between NBDP and PWA or between aphasia types. Figure 1 shows for the gestures used by PWA, that concrete deictics and iconic character viewpoint gest ures were proportionally most often essential. Also, a large proportion of emblems were essential. Within the category of ICV gestures, both enact and handling gestures were often essential (Figure 2). Discussion Our study showed that PWA’s gestures conve y information essential for their communication. This is particularly the case for, concrete deictics, handling and enact gestures, but possibly also for shape gesture. Contrary to previous findings for pantomime (Van Nispen et al., 2015b), at a group leve l, we did not find significant differences between NBDP and PWA, possibly, due to individual variability. At the workshop we plan to present detailed analyses focusing on explaining the importance of these individual differences.