CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we may affirm that kinesic signs are not arbitrary. Only the selection by each cultural group of particular analogical connections is arbitrary. The sign itself is both motivated and conventional as was shown by the intercultural semantic test based on filmed sequences of a certain number of French gestures and facial expressions, each of which was presented in full view and in a partial view (isolated gesture) in order to study the signifying structure. The results confirm the hypothesis of conventionality and of the relevance of the principal gestural signifier. Natives identified the expressions very well out of context. The influence of cultural differences is evident (85% correct identification by the French, 46% by the Hungarians, and 29% by the Japanese). The relevance of the gesture is also clear since the facial expression improved the French score by only 2%. The full facial/gestural expressions are shown to be conventional signs and are unanimously considered motivated, since the interpretations by foreigners can be explained either by assimilation to familiar signs or by the search for analogical connections. Certain mismatches are shared by the three groups, whether due to the signified, to the signifier, or to the relationship between the two. While facial expression appears to play a positive role for all three groups in connection with certain gestures (in that it lifts ambiguity in the isolated gesture), it can be seen that facial expression is also conventional.

The very informative study of mismatches also (1) allows one to determine the components of a signified (based on the phenomena of convergence toward and dispersion from it), (2) reveals the existence of hypersigns, in which a hypersignified (overlapping signifieds) corresponds to a hyper-signifier (physical analogies), (3) reconciles the effective polysemy of a gestural sign (indicated by the mismatches) with its iconic character. With regard to the latter point, the mismatch analysis reveals cases of semantic shifts in the signified or the possibility of multiple analogical links in the signifier. For a given gesture, the mind selects the particular physical aspect that motivates a particular sign. While the mismatches reveal the polysemy of the kinesic sign, their analysis shows that it is nonetheless motivated: it is polysemous and motivated.

The study from the point of view of the signifier uncovered the specificity of the various physical elements and the possibilities of substitution. The combination of specificity and substitution produces nuance within equivalence. Various equivalences between different body segments, between planes, or between axes can be seen as cross sections of the gestural repertory, whose intersections give a number of more or less extensive series of homologous gestures. Each element of a homologous series is nonetheless clearly individualized. Moreover, we note the possibility of a ‘gestural neologism,’ or complex gesture, a gestural synthesis of relevant signifying elements from two simple gestures referring to the signifieds of both of them.

The gestural variants of a given signified extracted from the physical repertory might be used to compile an onomasiological dictionary of French gestures, and might reveal the implicit semantics of the signified in question. For example, the various gestures illustrating perfection imply that perfection is a form of completion, that it involves precision, and that it is faultless. Similarly, according to the gestures that describe it, restriction is partial opposition or a different point of view.

The comparison of variants reveals the relationship between signifier and signified. Phenomena such as reduction and reinforcement, contrast, or shifting are observed to operate in parallel on the levels of the signifier and the signified. This isomorphism between the two facets of the gestural sign confirms the strength of the physico-semantic link and facilitates the search for a sign’s motivation. While the motivation is relatively easy to find when two body elements are interchangeable to express the same signified with a given movement (each nonetheless carrying a particular nuance), the motivation of many repetitive gestures can be deduced from the corresponding single-movement variant. The different motivations of a polysemous gesture can also be deduced from its variants. Finally, the variants of a given signified may reveal the phenomenon of double motivation of a signifier, as well as the various ways of strengthening a facial and/or gestural expression.

Through convergence, hybridization, compromise, and osmosis, gestural synthesis allows the exact definition of a signified. The world of gestures is comparable to the highly nuanced world of color. The definition and strength of a gestural signified are analogous to the tone and value of a color.

In accordance with what was observed during the intercultural semantic test, the examples of polysemy within the French gestural system fall into two types. In the first, (a), the link between the signifier and the signified is unique, while the signified is subject to semantic shifts: there is a single motivation. In the second type, (b), there are multiple links associating one or more of the signifying elements of the gesture with one or more signifieds: the motivation is plural. The physical signifier contains several functional signifiers. The combination of the two sources of polysemy multiplies the possible significations of a gesture. Plural motivation on the physical level and semantic shifting are the two essential sources of polysemy in a gesture, whether the polysemy is intercultural or intracultural.

(a) The polysemy of a singly motivated gesture is explained by semantic shifting. The gesture takes on new meanings as the meaning of the signified passes from literal to figurative, from concrete to abstract, from the spatial to the temporal world, from the physical to the psychological level, from a particular domain to everyday life. Since the gesturer can play himself or someone else, many gestures refer to pairs of signifieds, related through a role reversal. The gesture can change meaning in that the imagined reference can be changed: oneself, someone else, an object, an abstraction. Thus the fist, a sign of aggressiveness or force, evokes many signifieds. And depending on the direction in which the mimic force is applied, the signified is modified in correlation with the signifier. Semantic shifting does not preclude a very fine correspondence between the two facets of the sign. For example, the extent of the surface presented outward in opposition proves to be proportional to the importance of the opposition or self-protection symbolized.

(b) Plural motivation is explained by a very rich symbolism in the physcial signifier. The symbolism of a circle is a nice example, and one moreover which combines in a single visual symbol both graphics and gesture.

A gesture with a concrete referent may portray the shape of the signified or else the characteristic shape of one of its elements. It may be an imitation of the way an object is held; it may reproduce a movement, that of using the object or of its operation. The gesture involves a concrete operation of abstraction which assumes a transfer in time, of active body part, or of movement. More abstractly, the gesture may mime the literal meaning of a figurative expression, illustrate the physical content of a metaphorical cliché, or reproduce the literal, original, and forgotten meaning of word, thus giving its etymology. When the etymological and mimic roles of gesture conflict, the gesture does not reproduce the reality in question but illustrates the abstract idea of that reality.

Gestural expression seems to be as rich and complex as the reality it represents. By that I mean the internal workings and modes of operation of gestural expression as much as analogical depiction. Certain parallels appear. (1) Just as the mind chooses to mime a particular, relevant aspect of the reality to be expressed gesturally, it also selects within a given gesture a particular signifying feature (plural motivation). Simplifying the gesture, for example by progressively reducing it, may allow a better correspondence with the reality symbolized. (2) Coverbal gesturing, a typical activity of transfer between concrete and abstract and an essentially metaphorical one, exploits various types of transfer on the level of the signified, but also on the level of the signifier, by transposing certain bodily vehicles. (3) As an implicit signified is made explicit by the gesture, a given gestural form may also have several underlying signifiers. (4) Just as we may note a fusion of the notions of space and time, we observe an interaction between the spatial and temporal parameters of a gesture: slowness or repetition may render remoteness, and a large amplitude may portray a long period. In short, gestural expression, based on our perception of reality, proves to be, like perception, an activity of selection, abstraction, metaphor, and implication, in which even space and time are merged.

As concerns the relationship between gesture and speech, Condon and Kendon introduced the concept of linguistic-kinesic organizing rhythm (autosynchronization and intersynchronization). However, the phono-gestural parallelism goes beyond the temporal framework. It is found in the form, the signification and the functions of vocal or gestural signs. Many examples lead one to see the association of gesture and voice as forming a single figurative expression that is both visual and auditive. Nonverbal communication may be seen as a phylogenetic and ontogenetic trace of preverbal language, grafted onto verbal language to structure it (demarcation function, encoding) and enliven it (expressive function).

Comparable in certain aspects to the mixed semism of captioned images studied by Barthes, coverbal gesturing performs the functions of anchoring (gesture specifying a particular meaning) and relay (verbal topic—gestural comment). It would seem that the meaning of a hypersemous or polysemous gestural sign narrows through intersection with kinesic signs on other levels of the body (visual superposition) and through confrontation with the signs of the vocal string.

While they are intimately linked, gestural and verbal signs differ in the way they operate. This difference is flagrant if one compares the operation of a complex, coverbal gesture with that of a compound gesture in sign language, which is intended to replace verbal language.

The more or less marked, but systematic, gestural anticipation of illustrated utterances confirms that gesture facilitates verbal generation and plays a role in verbal encoding. Moreover, this phenomenon proves to be compatible with linguistic-kinesic autosynchronization and allows one to advance, alongside the notions of phylogenesis and ontogenesis, the concept of the actogenesis of language.

While many authors have spoken of gesture as illustrating or substituting for speech, the present study highlights gesture as complementary to speech, since it can paraphrase a segment of an utterance, or end a sentence. Gesture comments on utterance. Indeed, it explains or specifies the meaning of a word and, more often, adds complementary information, at the very least through kinesic judgments. This simultaneous, visual commentary obeys the principle of economy of information.

Gesture shows the passage from literal to figurative meaning, both in conventional and personal figurative expressions: its role is metaphorical. The depiction of concrete meaning gives gesture an etymological role: from a semantic point of view, it often appears as a concrete, synthetic, and unconscious dictionary. Thus coverbal gesturing provides a synchronic link—metaphor—and diachronic link—etymology—between concrete and abstract. The link is dual since gesture concretizes the abstract and symbolizes the concrete. This pivotal role, allied with its symbolic richness, may constitute the central conclusion of the present study.