Looking Beyond Words : Gestures in the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Multilingual Canada [1 ed.] 9781443881630, 9781443880121

Citation preview

Looking Beyond Words

Looking Beyond Words: Gestures in the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Multilingual Canada By

Giuliana Salvato

Looking Beyond Words: Gestures in the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Multilingual Canada By Giuliana Salvato This book first published 2015 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2015 by Giuliana Salvato All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-8012-4 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-8012-1

I dedicate this book to my parents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................... ix Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 Introduction Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 19 Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada 2.1. Gestures in language education 2.1.1. Gesture studies in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) 2.1.2. Gestures as a means to multilingualism, multimodality, and multicompetence 2.2. Gestures in Canadian educational settings 2.2.1. The language scenario of Canada: the case of English, French, and Italian 2.2.2. Gestures in Canadian English Second Language (ESL) classes 2.2.3. Gestures at multilingual Canadian universities: An Italian example 2.3. Conclusion Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 75 Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Gestures in official documents 3.3. Gestures in language textbooks of Italian 3.4. Gestures in Italian language classes 3.5. The interpretation of Italian emblematic gestures by Canadian learners of Italian: Three studies 3.5.1. The characteristics, the gestures, and the methodology of the studies 3.5.2. The 2006 study 3.5.3. The 2008 study 3.5.4. The 2009 study 3.6. Conclusion

viii

Table of Contents

Chapter Four ............................................................................................ 125 Conclusions 4.1. Implications of gestural theory for second language education in Canadian multilingual settings 4.2. A proposal for inclusion of gestures in Italian textbooks in Canada 4.3. A proposal for integration of gestures into Italian classes in Canada 4.4. A final comment Notes........................................................................................................ 151 Bibliography ............................................................................................ 153 Subject Index ........................................................................................... 173 Index of Names........................................................................................ 177

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Prof. Domenico Pietropaolo from the University of Toronto for his encouragement and mentorship during the writing of this book. I am grateful to the University of Windsor for granting me funds, particularly the Research Grant for Women, that have enabled the completion of this book. I would like to thank my colleagues at the Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures. Among them, Prof. Basil Kingstone offered very helpful comments on a previous version of this book. I am also grateful to the students Alyssa Daichendt and Laura D’Agnolo for helping me file the classroom language data in this book. Many thanks go to Meghan Desjardins for her copy-editing work, and to Mr. Sam Baker at Cambridge Scholars Publishing for assisting the preparation of the manuscript. I would like to acknowledge copyright permission obtained on material that appears in the following sources. The material is being reprinted in this manuscript with permission from the editors: © 2015 From Learning and Using Multiple Languages: Current Findings from Research on Multilingualism by Giuliana Salvato/Maria Pilar Safont Jordà and Laura Portolés Falomir (eds.). Reproduced by permission of Cambridge Scholars Publishing. © www.statcan.gc.ca Language data accessed in October 2012 and in February 2015. Reproduced and distributed on an “as is” basis with the permission of Statistics Canada. © 2012 From Italian Outside of Italy. The Situation in Canada, USA and the English-Speaking World by Giuliana Salvato/Salvatore Bancheri (ed.). Reproduced by permission of Gauvin Press. © 2011 From Language and Bilingual Cognition by Giuliana Salvato/Vivian Cook and Benedetta Bassetti (eds.). Reproduced by permission of Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, a division of Informa plc.

x

Acknowledgments

© 2009 From Diversity, Otherness, and Pluralism in Italian Literature, Cinema, Language, and Pedagogy. Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow by Giuliana Salvato/Filomena Calabrese, Lucia Ghezzi, Teresa Lobalsamo, Wendy Schrobilgen (eds.). Reproduced by permission of Legas Publishing. © 2008 From “The Representation of Gestures in Italian Textbooks and Workbooks” 85:1 by Giuliana Salvato. Reproduced by permission of Italica. © 2001 From The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages with Cambridge University Press. Reproduced by permission of Council of Europe. © 1990 From Senza parole. 100 gesti degli italiani by Pierangela Diadori. Reproduced by permission of Bonacci editore, Roma. Last but not least, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all my family and friends.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Approaching a culture different from our own can be a fascinating but also troublesome experience. Culture is one of the most difficult aspects of a new language to acquire, especially in adulthood. Growing up within a community of speakers and developing habits and life experiences in a specific world area are factors that have an inevitable impact on the learning of new languages and new cultures. We usually become aware of our cultural background and its influence on our behavior when we are confronted with alternative ways of living and communicating. Many people today learn a second language (L2) in order to be able to interact with a target speech community or to be competent in an internationally known language such as English or Spanish. Language learning brings together people from diverse cultures, each with a different concept of communication. World communities organize speaking and listening patterns in different ways. Gesture, for example, can play a more or less important role in the formulation and interpretation of meaning in a language. The index finger pointing at something or somebody is generally defined as a universal type of gesture. Other gestures, instead, are only found in specific cultural groups or, although sharing the same form, they assume different meanings depending on the community of speakers considered. One aspect of oral communication that distinguishes Italian from other languages is its reliance on a wide range of gestures. Kendon (2004) defines Italian as a “gesture-rich language.” This fact has been, and still is, reason for much stereotyping and misunderstanding. Italian is a minority language compared to other most commonly learned languages in the world, but it is present in countries to which Italians have immigrated (such as Canada and Australia). In Italian language classes outside Italy, students are likely to look at the comic, playful side of Italian body language rather than at its cognitive and communicative functions (cf. Salvato, 2009, 2010). This also derives from the ways media have exaggerated Italian nonverbal language in films and television series (e.g., The Sopranos in North America).

2

Chapter One

The idea of this book originates from the growing number of insights into the recent literature on gesture studies, which have renewed the attention paid by scholars to gesture functions and meanings in communication and in language learning (cf. Müller, Ladewig, Cienki, Fricke, Bressem, McNeill, and Tessendorf, 2013, 2014; Seyfeddinipur and Gullberg, 2014). Studies have revealed that gestures help the understanding of the language acquisition process and the learning of additional languages. The observation of how gesture and speech participate in communicative acts has produced engrossing research questions in contexts where the combination of languages and cultures is complex and diversified. Being a country of immigration, Canada is such a case. Multilingualism, multicompetence (i.e., competence in multiple abilities), and multimodality (i.e., different means used to convey and interpret meaning) define everyday activities in Canada, its school and work settings, as well as family and community life. This book discusses how advancements in different areas of gesture studies, multilingualism, multicompetence, and multimodality are bound to influence language pedagogy in Canada. This book aims to examine multilingualism, particularly multilingualism in Canada, by including gesture as a nonverbal dimension of language and as a means to language acquisition. In doing so, this book brings gesture to the fore and counteracts traditional practices in language classes or textbooks, which typically leave the nonverbal aspects of a language either uncommented on or underrepresented compared to the verbal aspects (for Italian, see Colli, 2004; Danesi, 2000; Diadori, 1992a,b; Salvato, 2005, 2008a,b, 2009). Gesture is a means to language education. Both teachers and learners can avail themselves of gestures while carrying out tasks and pursuing objectives. The examination of gesture uses in class can further elucidate functions and meanings of gesture in communication inside and outside the specific context of a language classroom (cf. Kellerman, 1992; Lazaraton, 2004; Neill, 1991; Tellier, 2008). This book is also indebted to the reading of the latest official documents that direct language pedagogy and provide guidelines for language teaching and learning, where gesture has been finally granted a position within language planning and in the evaluation of pedagogical results. Among the most outstanding documents, there are the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001); the American Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (1999); and the Ontario school curriculum (2006, 2007) in Canada. This book values gesture studies and pedagogical guidelines that encompass the nonverbal dimensions of a language with the hope that language education will

Introduction

3

become more sensitive to gestures and other nonverbal means of communication. The first goal of this book is to provide an overview of what we currently know about the role of gesture in language acquisition, particularly in the acquisition of a second language, and in the development of multilingualism. The second goal of this book is to focus on gestures in the pedagogy of second languages, particularly Italian in Canadian multilingual university settings. As a contribution to research, this book introduces three studies that investigate the interpretation of Italian gestures by language learners in Canadian universities. By borrowing from the principles and tenets in the most recent theories of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), applied linguistics, and the semiotics of gestures, this book offers some directions towards the systematic integration of gestures into the pedagogy of second languages and of Italian outside Italy. The following audiences are likely to be interested in reading this book: scholars researching second language acquisition in conjunction with gesture studies; educators and teachers interested in the integration of gestures into the pedagogy of second languages, that is, a more multimodal approach to second language pedagogy; and scholars whose focus is multilingualism. The inclusion of gestures in language classes and in textbooks can help redefine the concepts that have directed language pedagogy and textbook writing until today. As an example, an examination of textbooks of Italian available on the North American market has revealed that they offer no systematic overview of types and functions of Italian gestures and their role in oral communication (see Salvato, 2007, 2008a,b). It is not surprising that this situation contributes to a limited development of nonverbal competence among Italian language learners. Comprehension, and possible production, of Italian gestures are consequently affected. It is true that the study of gesture has gone through different phases in history, sometimes coming to the fore of language theories (cf. Wundt, 1973), at other times being regarded as an element of less importance compared to speech. As we read in Kendon (2004), in Roman times gestures appear in rhetorical treatises as tools that enable refined expression. In the 16th century, gestures are appreciated as a natural type of language compared to artificial and conventional spoken languages. In the 18th century, gestures are interpreted as the first form of language, precursors to speech, and in the 19th century, gestures are part of anthropological studies across cultures. In the 20th century, then, there is a diminished interest in gestures but starting from the 1970s, the question of

4

Chapter One

language origin, the study of sign languages, the role of gestures in language development, and their relationship with speech, along with the popularity of the cognitive approach to language studies, renewed the interest of scholars in gestures. Within educational settings, gestures have a long history too. In classical times, writers of rhetorical treatises would emphasize the importance of bodily movements in the education of young orators (see Quintilian’s Istitutio Oratoria, 1978). In modern times, language education strives to make the concepts of competence and performance more and more indebted to the aspects that characterize language uses in communication. Language classes and textbooks today typically embrace a communicative approach because they generally interpret language teaching and learning as focused on the development of language for communicative purposes. If gestures significantly define a target language, the communicative approach supports the integration of this aspect into language programs. Furthermore, it is often advocated that movements and actions add concreteness and imagery to verbal information and contribute to a better representation and comprehension of knowledge (cf. Clark and Paivio, 1991). In general, the combination of verbal and nonverbal language is expected to produce improved learning outcomes. At the same time, this practice is said to account for students’ diverse abilities, particularly their aptitude for more visual or more audio input and vice versa. Several examples from any language show that there is indeed a link between speech and gesture in communication. It is a common practice for anyone to combine a pointing gesture (i.e., deictic gestures) with an expression such as “this, that”; or to use a rhythmical gesture (i.e., beats) as one unfolds thoughts in a conversation. It is also frequent to attribute to gestures a complementary or substitute function with and for speech, either to make speech clearer or to replace it altogether. This is the case when a gesture illustrates the words of a speaker, for example by showing the size and the physical characteristics of an object under examination (i.e., iconic or representational gestures). The presence of gestures generally works in favor of comprehension. Gestures are especially useful because they can define location, direction, type of action, and agency. For example, a hand gesture can show the way an object is positioned on a surface (e.g., standing, lying, hanging). Arms flexed vs. arms straight along the body can specify the characteristics of a movement (e.g., running vs. walking). The two sides of the body can represent different referents in discourse (e.g., one hand represents one subject, the other hand another subject). Gestures can also reflect changes in viewpoint. A speaker may perform gestures from the perspective of a

Introduction

5

protagonist in a story (i.e., character viewpoint) rather than the perspective of an outsider to the story (i.e., observer viewpoint) (cf. McNeill, 1992). Debreslioska, Özyürek, Gullberg, and Perniss (2013) argue that changes in viewpoint are regulated by whether speakers maintain or re-introduce referents in their discourse. The authors find that with maintained referents, character viewpoint predominates, whereas the reintroduction of referents prompts a change to observer viewpoint. Gestures in these instances contribute to cohesion in discourse. Context, however, can determine how much information is conveyed through gestures and speech. In noisy places, words are not a possible means of communication, whereas gestures enable the exchange of information all the same. Momentarily forgotten speech or lack of technical and elaborate words can also be resolved through gestures. Snapping fingers are often used while one is trying to retrieve missing words. Gesture can also indicate to the interlocutor that their participation in the search for the words in a communicative act is welcome. On the other hand, gesture can occur in the absence of an interlocutor. For example, people use gestures while talking on the phone or with themselves in private speech. Blind people too have been found to gesture while interacting with other blind people (cf. Iverson and Goldin-Meadow, 1997). A gesture can then help speakers build co-reference. Instead of pronouns, gestures can indicate the anaphoric relationship between two elements in discourse. Moreover, new topics or subjects, or emphatic information, are often introduced by gestures. Gestures can also facilitate the formulation of words in complex tasks such as reasoning or explaining, where gestures contribute to the organization and verbalization of thought. Gestures can provide insight into people’s thoughts or feelings that are not expressed in speech. It is often the case that a speaker reveals his or her real intentions through nonverbal behavior rather than with words. For instance, scratching one’s head often conveys the meaning of hesitation even when words by themselves do not express this concept. These examples of gesture and speech cooperating in the formulation of meaning introduce the theoretical framework established by two major scholars in the field of gesture studies: Adam Kendon (1972, 1987, 1988, 2000a, 2004), an anthropologist, and David McNeill (1985, 1992, 2005), a psycholinguist. In the 1970s, both Kendon and McNeill came to the realization that speech and gesture are two aspects of the same process, although they placed a different emphasis on the context in which communication takes place (cf. Holler and Beattie, 2003). For Kendon (2004), context has an impact on thought with consequences on the

6

Chapter One

speaker’s intentions and on the collaboration among the interlocutors in the achievement of a communicative objective. Gesture is a resource on which speakers can draw to assist their communicative intent. For McNeill (1992, 2000), context takes a less important role as the author focuses more on how gesture, along with speech, reflects the speaker’s thought and mental representations. Kendon (2000a) defines the close relationship between speech and gesture as a “unity” and a “duality” at the same time. This is because each modality provides for its own function and meaning while they both participate in the realization of an utterance. In Kendon’s (2004:7) theory, the collaboration of speech and gesture is meant for the others: “any ensemble of action that counts for others as an attempt by the actor to ‘give’ information of some sort [...] may be constructed from speech or from visible bodily action or from combinations of these two modalities.” Kendon (2004:15) says that movements assume the status of gestures when they are recognizable by the interlocutors as intended to express some content: “actions that have the features of manifest deliberate expressiveness.” In other words, a gesture cannot be separated from the participants in communicative acts and their interpretation. As evidence of this, one can consider the intense and multiple exchanges that take place on a daily basis in Naples, Italy (cf. Kendon, 2004). It is a fact that the favorable type of climate in the city facilitates life and communication in the open air. Kendon (2004) describes the exchanges in Naples as a sort of competition, where gestures, sometimes in complex and elaborate forms, enable communication in very busy environmental settings and are the only means for individuals to compete with one another for attention. Both speech and gesture organize their characteristics in an utterance. Speech is organized into packages that coincide with tone units (e.g., intonation), which in turn correspond to units of meaning. Gesture is also organized into packages of action, called gesture phrases, which tend to be semantically coherent with the units of meaning expressed in tone units (Kendon, 2004). Speakers produce gestures that relate to speech, and organize them in a hierarchy. Gesture and the bodily parts involved will vary according to the size of the speech unit. Small speech units, such as a syllable, will accompany small body moves whereas larger speech units, such as change of topic, will associate with greater body moves (cf. Kendon, 1972). Kendon (2004) points out that gestures usually express just a part of the idea in the tone unit. A gesture can make more obvious the characteristics of a movement expressed in a phrase. For example, a speaker can provide more specific information about the manner of the

Introduction

7

action through a body movement (e.g., “running”) without necessarily verbalizing the same information (e.g., “He left the house”). Moreover, the speaker has some degree of control over a gesture, its meaning and function, just as he has control over speech. In repeating or in reformulating an utterance, whether for himself or for the others, whether for correcting previous speech or for making it more precise or more emphatic, the speaker repeats or reformulates both speech and gesture. This is further evidence of the fact that speech and gesture cooperate in the realization of meaning and that both are equally important for the speaker. Their “partnership,” as Kendon (2004:127) calls it, changes according to the focus and the aim that the speaker intends to convey, that is, how the speaker perceives the communicative needs of the interlocutor: “speakers [...] can control these two components and can orchestrate them differently, according to the occasion.” In collaborating together in the realization of an utterance, there is no need for gesture to assume the characteristics that define speech (cf. Kendon, 2000a). Some gestures, however, are quite conventional in form and function as if they were lexical items. These are symbolic gestures, or emblems, which often convey meaning without speech but can be lexicalized in words. Kendon (1988) says that the so-called “emblems” represent a communicative code in their own right, established within a community of speakers to function without speech. The author adds that other gestures as well can occur independently of speech. These tend to assume standard forms and general and abstract meanings. They become fully lexicalized and similar to words and compete with words in the realization of discourse. Kendon (1988) proposes the example of the gesture that indicates the action of “drinking” to demonstrate that it can assume the meaning of “I want to drink” but also of “let’s have a drink.” The meaning and performance of this gesture depend on the communicative situation and on the verification of the conditions that justify the production of the gesture. This is why Kendon (1987) believes speech and gesture to be two separate modes of representation of meaning, where meaning is not transformed from one modality into the other or through the other. Meaning results from the cooperation of speech and gesture. Sharing with Kendon (2004) the idea that speech and gesture are linked modes of communication, McNeill (1992:2) states that gestures work together with, not in alternation to, speech: “gestures are an integral part of language as much as words, phrases, sentences, gesture and language are one system.” Gestures reveal thought in an imagery form. Along with speech, they are a manifestation of the same underlying mental process. As

8

Chapter One

McNeill (1985) states, “gestures offer themselves as a second channel of observation of the psychological activities that take place during speech production.” The fact that gesture shares with speech the same mental process is the very reason why the author questions the idea that gestures are nonverbal (McNeill, 1985). In his theory, McNeill (1985, 1992, 2005) focuses particularly on those spontaneous movements of hands, fingers, and arms that accompany speech and that bring personal and idiosyncratic aspects of thought into the realization of discourse. Like Kendon, McNeill (1992) does not view gestures as a translation of speech into visual and kinesic forms. The author says that speakers are often unaware of conveying a dimension of thought by means of gestures. They do not usually perform the whole content of their speech in a gestural form because they make a selection of what they want to render in this form. In McNeill’s (1985) view, this process shows what is relevant to speakers. McNeill (1992:105) defines gestures as “symbols that exhibit meaning.” In a narration, for example, speakers may describe the movement of an action rather than the physical features of a character. While narrating, speakers may use their hands to mean different things: a character or an object in the story. In this way, gestures reveal their symbolic nature. Similarly, metaphoric gestures provide speakers with the opportunity to think of abstract concepts, such as space, in concrete forms. Metaphoric gestures also reveal a symbolic nature (McNeill, 1985, 1992). The possibility of this happening suggests that gestures, unlike speech, do not depend on rules or standards but express the elements of thoughts that are important for the speaker at the very moment of producing meaning. In other words, gestures are more direct manifestations of the thinking process. Speech conveys linear and segmented meaning in accordance with its systematic rules and functions. Gesture creates global and synthetic meaning, which is not systematic in form. For example, the verbal expression “climb up” uses two speech elements to indicate manner and direction. The corresponding gesture describes the action as a whole, simultaneously performing manner and direction. As McNeill (1992) comments, the difference distinguishing speech from gesture is revealed in the overall representation of thought as well as in a mutual influence. On the one hand, gestures are immune to the errors that affect speech; they enable the expression of personal and context-specific aspects of thought that speech alone would not be able to manifest; they can also anticipate references expressed at later points in speech because of grammatical constraints. On the other hand, gestures remain closely linked to speech. They occur during speech, they contribute to the expression of meaning

Introduction

9

with speech, and the two develop together in children, but they also break down together in aphasia. Gestures use space to express meaning, whereas speech uses time by putting together sounds, words, and phrases in a temporal progression (McNeill, 1985, 1992). An important tenet in McNeill’s theory is that gestures have an impact on thought. Gestures are a representation or expression of thought but they are also thought itself. McNeill (2005) believes that the interaction between opposite modes of thinking (i.e., global-synthetic vs. linearsegmented) is in the first place the source of thought. In this sense, McNeill’s theory is indebted to Vygotsky’s (1986), from whom McNeill adopts the term “material carrier” to say that gestures are the material carriers of meaning. McNeill (2005) agrees with Vygotsky (1986) when he says that meaning exists and develops in conjunction with its material carrier. McNeill (2005) proposes to look at verbal thinking also in the form of action. Gestures and the accompanying speech manifest verbal thinking. When combined, they create minimal units called “growth points” (Vygotsky, 1986). As speakers formulate an utterance, speech and gesture shape thought and influence one another (McNeill, 2005). Thinking is revealed through the verbal mode, speech, and through the nonverbal mode, gestures. Gestures that occur with speech embody imagery. They are produced as the speaker thinks and speaks in a dialectic of images and language. The integration of speech, gesture, and imagery forms growth points (McNeill, 1992, 2005). Thinking, speaking, imagery, and gestures are all part of the same process, where the dynamic dimension revealed through gestures complements the static dimension revealed through speech (McNeill, 2005). Despite the instability of this dialectic, growth points “must retain properties of the whole” (McNeill, 1992:220). The components of the unit possess “unique semiotic properties” and each can surpass “the meaning possibilities of the other” (McNeill and Duncan, 2000:144). One implication of the growth point hypothesis is that without imagery, there could be no speech. As McNeill (2005:125) states: “it is not that one thinks first, then finds the language to express thought […] rather, thinking, as the source of meaning, emerges throughout the process of utterance formation.” This idea is also at the base of the evolution of language (McNeill, 2012). Without gestures the human brain and language could not have evolved. Thanks to the interaction between different modes of thinking “the brain became able to combine hand movements and vocal action sequences under some significance other than that of the action itself” (McNeill, 2005:247). Another implication of the growth point hypothesis is that psychological processes and communicative activity are

10

Chapter One

inseparable. Speaking and gesturing are always motivated, whether to influence the interlocutor in communication or to influence the speaker in cognitive activity. Communicating for the others or for ourselves does not necessarily occur as separate and independent activities. Gestures can simultaneously express a speaker’s interpretation of a situation for another person to understand it while aiding the speaker in developing this understanding (cf. Vygotsky, 1986). Besides discussing the relationship between speech and gesture in an utterance, scholars have also debated the origin and the nature of their link. Most theories agree with the view that gesture and speech come into place through two independent processes. Some theories see gesture as preceding speech. They claim that gesture facilitates lexical retrieval (the Lexical Retrieval Hypothesis). Freedman (1972), for example, interprets gesture as a means that facilitates speaking. His approach stems from Dittman’s (1972) hypothesis according to which body movement can accompany the rhythmic properties of speech. Dittman (1972) provides data to show how body movement relates to hesitation in speech. The author argues that this happens especially at start positions of the phonemic clauses, which are the smallest units where lexical and syntactic choices are made. Freedman (1972) takes a step further and shows that some hand movements are congruent with speech; they can supplement or accentuate speakers’ words. This hypothesis assigns to gesture the important function of creating and monitoring speech in cognitive processes. Other theories interpret speech as preceding gesture (Butterworth and Hadar, 1989; Feyereisen, 1987; Hadar and Butterworth, 1997). Gestures occur when there is an overload of information in working memory, or a mismatch between the speaker’s intentions and actual utterance. The fact that gestures can occur in absence of speech further proves that gestures and speech do not have a common processing origin. Gesture and speech are also considered by some scholars to develop in parallel with no collaboration. By including gesture in Levelt’s (1989) linear information processing model for speaking, De Ruiter (2000) formulates a series of stages so that the processing of gesture parallels the stages for the processing of speech. The author believes that aspects that cannot be part of the verbal expression will form gestural expression. The plan for using speech and gesture starts at the same stage, the Conceptualizer stage. In subsequent processes, however, speech and gesture proceed independently. Yet there are theories that assume gesture and speech to develop independently although they collaborate with one another. In the Information Packaging Hypothesis (Kita, 2000), for example, gestures

Introduction

11

enable the representation and packaging of imagistic thought that will become ready for verbalization. Kita (2000) argues that speech generates analytic thinking whereas gestures create spatio-motoric thinking. This fact makes each modality offer an alternative possibility for the representation of meaning, which becomes particularly useful on occasions when either modality is not available. In the Lexical Interface Hypothesis, the lexical resources and the syntactical characteristics of a language impose constraints on how information is organized in gestural form (see Kita and Özyürek, 2007). As already discussed earlier in this chapter, McNeill’s (1992) Growth Point theory claims that speech and gesture originate from the same mental process and are a single integrated system. Both speech and gesture develop from a growth point, in which speech, gestures, and thinking dialectally and continuously influence one another. In sum, the place and the nature of the link between speech and gesture has been interpreted in different ways. In some perspectives, speech is primary and gesture is auxiliary. In others, gesture and speech are equal partners and gesture is an integral part of an utterance. Perspectives then differ in their focus. Some interpret gesture as a window on thought (McNeill, 1992, 2005), whereas others focus on the interplay between imagistic and linguistic thinking (e.g., the Interface Hypothesis), or they focus on the communicative intention that makes speech and gesture create multimodal utterances (Kendon, 2004). Gestural theory, the relationship that gesture establishes with speech, and the debate about the link that unites gesture to speech and vice versa all reveal the multimodal nature of communication (cf. Müller, Ladewig, Cienki, Fricke, Bressem, McNeill, and Tessendorf, 2013, 2014; Seyfeddinipur and Gullberg, 2014). Interactional exchanges among native or non-native speakers entail not only the use of words but also of gestures and other nonverbal aspects (e.g., gaze, proxemics), which enable the expression of contents that would not be conveyed otherwise, or would be formulated with fewer nuances of meaning. This fact demands that the observation of communicative exchanges is carried out in all of their characteristics, which can consequently help understand intrapersonal speakers’ intentions (cf. Hadar and Butterworth, 1997; Kita, 2000) and their interpersonal communicative objectives (cf. Cohen, 1977; Beattie and Shovelton, 2007). Gestural theory also indicates that attention to gestures can provide new insights into the process of second language development (cf. Gullberg, 1998, 2006, 2009a,b, 2013a,b, 2014). Traditionally, SLA scholars have been concerned with speech more than with gestures. Recent

12

Chapter One

studies, however, suggest that the way L2 speakers use and interpret gestures provides compelling information about the function of this visual and kinetic aspect of communication, both for the learners, who are in the process of developing knowledge of a different language, and for the interlocutors, who participate in communication with them (cf. “foreigner talk”). Gesture occurrences are not only a prerogative of non-native speakers, who compensate for lack of target verbal language by resorting to gestures to continue communicating. Gullberg (2011a), one of the major scholars in the field of gesture studies in SLA, confirms that native and non-native speakers equally rely on gestures in communication. In her study, the author found that ten Swedish and twenty-one Dutch learners of L2 French along with fourteen French learners of L2 Swedish, who received formal instruction as low-to-intermediate level students of a second language, used gestures to solve linguistic and communicative problems, to clarify content, and to assure understanding. Gullberg (2011a:148) notes a quantitative difference in gesture uses between native and non-native speakers, but strategically they all show multimodal behavior whenever some lexical, grammatical, or interactional problem arises: “speech and gestures are essentially equal partners whose relative weights may nevertheless shift at different moments in time depending on fluctuation, ease of expression, and subsequent shifts in awareness and intentionality, and whose internal versus external communicative motivations also shift as a consequence.” Similarly, Mori and Hayashi (2006) observe that gestures accomplish the so-called “embodied completions” (cf. Olsher, 2004), which typically help native speakers find a common frame of reference with their nonnative interlocutors. Combinations of words and gestures enable speakers to convey, confirm, and ratify meaning. By assessing their interlocutor’s knowledge through speech and gestures, native speakers may reformulate what non-native speakers said or tried to express in words. Native speakers are likely to use expressions that make communication move from an approximate to a more specific phrasing of the ideas originally intended by the non-native speaker. The non-native speaker is consequently exposed to more elaborate and target-like language. It is in this way that embodied completions help non-native speakers notice and learn new and advanced linguistic forms. The communicative value of gestures is particularly clear when speech is not developed yet or not present at all, as in the case of language learners at different levels of proficiency. The verbal code being inaccessible to them forces learners to use nonverbal aspects of

Introduction

13

communication. Gestures, among other nonverbal elements, become more visible and their communicative function can be measured more closely. This is what Church, Ayman-Nolley, and Mahootian (2004) did while working with children who were native and non-native speakers of English. The authors noted that all participants learned much more when exposed to instruction including gestures, particularly gestures that represented the same concepts as speech. Gestures reinforced the meaning expressed by the native speakers, and enabled access to the intended meanings for the non-native speakers. On the basis of this finding, Church et al. (2004) support use of gestures in education and in language pedagogy in general. Language teaching and learning can draw other important insights from gestures. In reviewing how our hands help us learn, Goldin-Meadow and Wagner (2005) consider two implications from gestural theory (i.e., Kendon, 2004; McNeill, 2005). One is concerned with the speaker and the cognitive effort entailed in the performance of a task. Through gestures, resources are made available for the speaker to handle a task more easily. In addition, the gestural representation of an idea is likely to affect the speaker’s learning trajectory. Gestures in these cases reflect and shape thought. The other implication has to do with how interlocutors can benefit from gestures in a communicative exchange. Goldin-Meadow and Wagner (2005) examine the case when gestures express an idea different from the idea conveyed in speech (i.e., mismatched gestures). In the authors’ opinion, this is an indication of a transitional state in the speaker’s mental processes and it is the moment when speakers are more ready to make progress and learn. Interlocutors who notice those mismatched gestures might change the way they communicate. In class, for example, teachers who glean information about students’ understanding, or lack of it, may adjust their verbal language accordingly and, perhaps, decide to use gestures to clarify meanings. Teachers’ gestures may encourage learners to produce gestures as well, even by imitation. In sum, Goldin-Meadow and Wagner (2005) argue that the cognitive and communicative functions of gestures can significantly help SLA research elucidate the language acquisition process and the development of skills of different nature in language learners. One other advancement in SLA originating from gestural theory concerns evaluation of language development and learning. Gesture patterns have been found to reveal insights into whether learners are still thinking according to parameters that pertain to their native language or, rather, they are approaching target ways of thinking. As repeatedly demonstrated in various studies, the languages of the world show different

14

Chapter One

patterns of “thinking-for-speaking” (Slobin, 1996), which form a framework of reference enabling the expression of events and thought within the lexical, syntactical, and pragmatic possibilities available in a language. Children develop the thinking-for-speaking characteristics of their own language as they grow up in their community of speakers. Learning another language often means acquiring a different way of thinking-forspeaking. In these cases, one needs to become acquainted with new verbal and nonverbal structures that allow the expression of concepts such as time, space, and motion. Gesture forms, gesture timing, and the encoding of manner and path of motion in gestures have all been found to vary across languages. Stam (2007) claims that the study of thinking-forspeaking patterns across languages, along with the examination of gesture occurrences in synchronization with parts of speech, puts the McNeillian perspective into practice within SLA research. By observing gestures in language learners, scholars can gain an enhanced view into their mind (cf. McNeill, 2005). Gestures enable the visibility and the interpretation of learners’ mental representations and learning processes. A much more thorough evaluation of learning stems from the analysis of verbal and nonverbal characteristics in language learners. Attention to the body in the language acquisition process derives from Vygotsky (1978, 1986) and his philosophy. In first language acquisition, Vygotsky (1986) advocates that it is through gestures rather than speech that children come into contact with the concept of “sign.” A child first imitates the gestures of an adult and then gradually understands the communicative intention of those signs (cf. Tomasello, 2003). The process of meaning creation depends on the materiality (i.e., movement) of our actions. Children develop knowledge of things through the actions and activities that they carry out within the cultural-historical contexts in which they are born and live. The content of what children can do first with the help of parents or caregivers, and will be able to carry out by themselves in the future, defines Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD). McCafferty (2002) uses this concept to discuss the potential of gestures in language learning in general. The body assumes a significant role even when one learns a language additional to the first language. Either alone or in collaboration with speech, gestures create ZPDs. McCafferty (2002) advocates that gestures in ZPDs entail a transformation of consciousness and a development of skills. This view finds support again in Vygotsky (1978:42): “in appropriating the resources of the culture through participation in social action and interaction, the individual both

Introduction

15

transforms those resources and is transformed in the process.” McCafferty (2004) examines the case of an English learner who, in using gestures and space, finds a way to help himself organize discourse and learn language (cf. Slama-Cazacu, 1976). While interacting with a native speaker of English, a Taiwanese speaker maps out the historical relationship between China, Korea, and Japan, and refers back to this virtual map by using gestures. Gestures are for this second language speaker of English a means of thinking and of developing thought (cf. Vygotsky, 1978). On the other hand, the English native speaker cooperates with the learner in this task, also by mirroring his gestures. McCafferty’s (2004) study confirms the strong interconnection that gesture establishes with thought and verbal language, whether in the accomplishment of intrapersonal functions (i.e., for the speaker) or in order to maintain interpersonal and communicative functions (i.e., for the benefit of interaction). Later on, McCafferty (2006) finds that movement and gestures are also important in the acquisition of prosody and syllable structure. One would expect prosody to have nothing to do with action. Yet, McCafferty (2006) notes that the Taiwanese learner of English synchronizes the movements of his hands (i.e., beats) with the separation of words into syllables. Through the up-and-down and back-and-forth beating of his hands, the learner creates visual and material significance of the structure of his words. On the basis of all his findings, McCafferty (2006) argues that SLA should not separate mind and body, the mental and material worlds, but interpret them as interacting with one another on the path to learning and development (cf. Vygotsky, 1986). With these considerations in mind, it becomes clear that interpreting gestures mainly as a tool that compensates for lack of words, or that helps non-native speakers overcome moments of difficulty in the formulation of target speech, is quite limiting. Research questions in today’s SLA studies address much more complex topics, which are particularly engrossing when they consider speakers whose verbal and nonverbal behaviors show an interplay of multiple linguistic systems coming together and participating in the making of meaning (cf. Cook, 1992). Insights from this area of scholarship can ultimately bring more understanding of how thought and mental processes function in humankind. In general, studies have revealed that gestures are more conservative than speech. Patterns of gestures are likely transferred from one’s native language to a target language and are maintained for a longer period of time, even when speech reaches high levels of proficiency. In paying attention to learners’ performance, one can observe whether gestural characteristics still pertain to the first language, or whether there is a mix

16

Chapter One

of two gestural languages, the native and the language in the process of being learned. Presence of gestural characteristics pertaining to a different language has been called “foreign accent” by von Raffler-Engel (1980) and, perhaps more appropriately, “manual accents” by Kellerman and Van Hoof (2003). Gullberg (2012) claims that gesture studies along with bilingualism and multilingualism should be on today’s agendas of research aimed at elucidating the nature of linguistic systems and language use in context. The author identifies three areas of interest. One concerns the relationship between speech and co-occurring gestures and their common conceptual origin. The second area is the extent to which world communities have different gestural repertoires and whether these are determined by cultural convention or linguistic factors. The third area questions whether gestures are learned through imitation and molding or are instead based on linguistic development. Following Gullberg’s (2012) recommendations, this book aims at the examination of gesture perception and interpretation in exchanges that involve people with different cultural backgrounds. In multicultural societies, where the variety of languages within family, work, and social settings can be quite diversified, gesture perception and interpretation are likely to be influenced by the way those languages understand gestures in communication. Canada offers this type of linguistic scenario. The 2011 census data (see Statistics Canada at www.statcan.gc.ca) revealed that the number of non-official languages in Canada has been increasing in the last few decades. In areas where English is the majority language, speakers with a different mother tongue are likely to show their heritage background while communicating in English. From a gestural point of view, speakers of gesture-rich languages, such as Italian, may produce gestures of their native tongue, or of their interlanguage (Selinker, 1972), or of the target language, more spontaneously than speakers of non-gesture-rich languages, such as Japanese. This trend reflects the function that gestures assume in those speakers’ native cultures. In gesture-rich cultures, gestures regularly participate in the creation of meaning. Differences in gesture uses are also observed in ESL (English as a second language) classes or classes of international languages, in which participants hail from different parts of the world and interpret nonverbal behavior according to their culture of origin (cf. Sime, 2008). It is often noted that communication in class is affected by gesture occurrences. When gestures assume culturally specific meanings, they may be easily misinterpreted. The acquisition of these gestures has been found to

Introduction

17

represent a challenge to L2 learners (e.g., Jungheim, 2006). On the other hand, other types of gestures, such as pointing or representational gestures, can help the interaction among the members of a multicultural language class. Language teachers usually rely on gestures while conducting their classes and students become accustomed to the occurrence of these pedagogical gestures. Having introduced some foundational topics that direct gestural theory in language acquisition and language pedagogy, the chapters that follow are organized in this way. Chapter two focuses on the study of gestures in the acquisition and development of second languages in those settings where the interaction of different languages cannot be ignored. It deals with the multilingual reality of Canadian educational settings, where gestures can expand the concept of multilingualism. By kinetically and visually representing meaning, gestures become one of the languages that constitute multilingualism. The chapter aims to investigate whether gestures can reveal further insights into the experience of learning an additional language when speakers already know a variety of languages. Multilingual speakers have been shown to display a range of behaviors that pertain to their unique and complex linguistic configuration. Chapter two hints at the importance of studying gesture production and interpretation by multilinguals in order to elucidate further their general skills and abilities. The chapter also discusses the need for language pedagogy to account for the multimodal age in which we live today. Daily activities in modern society not only rely on words and written texts. Images are equally important. In language pedagogy, however, speech and written texts have traditionally assumed a privileged position even if research has demonstrated the participation of gestures and other nonverbal aspects in the making of meaning in any interaction. Chapter two advocates the need to acknowledge a systematic position for gestures in language methodologies, techniques, and material. Chapter three examines the role of gesture in the pedagogy of Italian in Canada. The possibilities that gestures can offer to expand teaching methodologies are discussed. An analysis of official documents and language textbooks of Italian suggests that on paper educators and policy makers claim the necessity to integrate gestures into the pedagogy of second languages. But the reality of L2 classes and textbooks shows a different scenario. Through the integration of gestures, the scope of language textbooks can be expanded, the teaching and learning of nonverbal contents can be promoted, and the very concept of language teaching and learning can become at the same time more multilingual and more multimodal. Chapter three also introduces three research experiences

18

Chapter One

carried out with L2 learners of Italian at Canadian universities, who were invited to interpret a selection of six Italian emblematic gestures. The chapter examines the characteristics of each study and their results. In particular, the interpretations exhibited by Canadian learners of Italian are discussed in relation to their prior linguistic and cultural knowledge, which offer insights into the experience of multilinguals learning Italian in Canada. Finally, the concluding chapter, chapter four, offers a number of suggestions deriving from gestural theory. Emphasis is placed on the significance of research on gestures and multilingualism for theoretical innovation and for practical applications in contexts where language classes are composed of speakers of different languages. The chapter ends with two proposals for the inclusion of gestures in the pedagogy of Italian as a second language in multilingual settings outside Italy.

CHAPTER TWO GESTURES AND THE PEDAGOGY OF SECOND LANGUAGES IN CANADA

2.1. Gestures in language education Generally speaking, gestures play a meaningful role in class. Teachers use gestures to clarify concepts, to capture students’ attention, and to make a class more dynamic and alive. On the other hand, students rely on gestures to help their reasoning, to convey ideas, and to assist their performance of a task. Students are likely to evaluate positively the nonverbal behavior of teachers in class and the effort that a teacher makes in order to be approachable and friendly in class (e.g., Bailey, 1982; Nelson, 1991; Inglis, 1993; Roach, Cornett-DeVito, and DeVito, 2005; Sime, 2006, 2008). Eye contact, for example, is very important in any interaction, including the class setting (cf. Argyle, 1972; Bailey, 1982). Forward body lean is also associated with positive meanings, such as rapport, immediacy, or involvement. Smiling and pleasant facial expressions receive equally good evaluations from interlocutors in different contexts (cf. Burgoon, Buller, Hale, and DeTurck, 1984). Various studies have found that a class accompanied by gestures is more effective than a class without gestures (e.g., Alibali and Nathan, 2007; Church, Ayman-Nolley, and Mahootian, 2004; Valenzeno, Alibali, and Klatzky, 2003). Goldin-Meadow (2004) recommends that teachers make good use of gestures and pay attention to the gestures produced by students. In a language class, gestures may reveal the extent of learners’ progress, even when their speech is non-target like. For example, learners may speak in the present tense to refer to actions that occurred in the past. However, they may accompany the incorrect choice of tense with a gesture that clearly locates action in past time. In Western cultures, a hand wave over one’s shoulder usually defines time of an action in the past. Nonverbal immediacy in class and its impact on learners’ advancement and interest in learning have been used as concepts of inquiry in studies involving participants from different cultural backgrounds. For example,

20

Chapter Two

McCroskey, Fayer, Richmond, Sallinen, and Barraclough (1996) worked with learners from Australia, Finland, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. culture. The authors found that increased teacher immediacy corresponded to increased affective learning across these cultures. Moreover, they noted that regardless of the dominant norm in the respective cultures, if the teacher is comparatively more immediate, students’ learning is enhanced. Similarly, Jenkins and Parra (2003) worked with international teaching assistants at North American universities and found that those teaching assistants who engaged in an active use of nonverbal behavior appropriate to the context and the interlocutors received better evaluations from their students than those who did not engage in nonverbal uses. Moreover, the authors noted that teaching assistants whose language proficiency is weak but who use nonverbal behavior strategically are still capable of negotiating meaning and engaging with their interlocutors. The visual-spatial components that pertain to gestures allow an immediate representation of contents and work towards reinforcing meanings. Psycholinguistic theories and related studies support this idea as they have proved that a more marked trace in memory is left if learning combines the visual with the motor modality (cf. Clark and Paivio, 1991; Cohen and Otterbein, 1992; Engelkamp and Cohen, 1991; Nyberg, Persson, and Nilsson, 2002). The work by Beattie and Shovelton (2007) can also be cited to corroborate the advantages of combining verbal and nonverbal language in communication. The authors tested the interpersonal effects that gestures produce in communication. They considered iconic gestures, which naturally occur with speech and in combination with speech, and their link to the reality talked about. Beattie and Shovelton (2007) found that those gestures are crucial to the overall meaning and carry over half as much information as the verbal part of the message. In addition, they convey semantic features such as speed, direction of the action, the relative position of people or objects, and information about size and shape. An experiment that involved interpretation of advertisements by means of T.V., radio, and text alone confirmed the results in Beattie and Shovelton (2007). The participants in the T.V. condition gained 40.7 per cent more information than the participants in the radio and text conditions. Beattie and Shovelton (2007) attributed the success of T.V. ads not only to the general effects of T.V. per se, but also to the iconic and metaphoric gestures included. Better than images alone, spontaneous gestures were able to put core information in the foreground and effectively promote a message or a product. Unlike speech alone, speech and gesture together can accomplish communicative objectives with better results and permit communication to achieve its potential.

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

21

Language education that focuses on verbal content only is bound to limit the possibilities of communication and learning in class. Gestures and nonverbal behavior in general can indeed expand the scope of a language class and offer opportunities for teachers and learners to function more effectively in their class roles. Gestures can make information more precise in class. For example, a quick movement of a hand can specify the velocity of an action even when this piece of information is not included in speech. Other times, gestures add information to words. For example, a hand gesture that shows the characteristics of an action (e.g., descending stairs) completes the idea conveyed in the sentence “he fled the house.” Gestures can facilitate the formulation of words in a sentence. As a way to aid their language production, learners may perform an action (e.g., “climbing”) before using the corresponding verbal expression. On the other hand, gesture can help with understanding verbal content. The performance of the gesture illustrating the action of “climbing” can clarify meaning to learners who are encountering this verb for the first time. Language classes can benefit from gesture occurrences in more ways. A hand gesture combined with the intonation patterns that typically define a second language can help learners notice rhythm and pitch in the target language (cf. von Raffler-Engel, 1980). Hand gestures can also facilitate the segmentation of sentences into relevant units, such as clauses. Following Kendon’s (1984) work, when he found a tight connection between the phrasal organization of gesticulation and the phrasal organization of speech, language learners can be trained to become more sensitive to this role of gestures. In producing speech, learners can be taught to chunk the information that they want to communicate. In interpretation tasks, they can be instructed to observe native interlocutors as they construct boundaries between relevant thoughts. Knapp and Hall (2006) coin the expression “punctuation gestures” to refer to gestures that accentuate or emphasize single words or phrases as they occur with them. The authors say that a gesture often coincides with a speaker’s primary voice stress. Emphasis usually indicates that the information being punctuated is either new or in contrast with previous information, or is the most important part of the utterance (cf. Goodwin, 2001). Learners who are trained to pay attention to this category of gestures are likely to acquire the ability to distinguish content words from function words and new information from information already communicated. Gregersen, OlivaresCuhat, and Storm (2009:196) argue that “language learners who are aware of the gestures that accompany the natural flow of speech will be able to watch their interlocutor for these indications and gain further insight into

22

Chapter Two

linguistic stress as well as implement them into their own speech to communicate discreteness or emphasis.” Gestures have been found to contribute to memorization and recall of new vocabulary. Tellier (2008), for example, worked with twenty French children aged between four and eleven, who were to learn eight words in English. The children were divided into two groups: one group was taught words with pictures and the other words with accompanying gestures. The latter group had to reproduce the gestures while repeating the words. Tellier (2008) found that not only gestures per se but their reproduction significantly influenced memorization and production of English vocabulary. Allen (1995) carried out a similar study and noted how university students exposed to gestures accompanying French expressions were able to recognize and translate more vocabulary than students who were taught those expressions without the association with French gestures. Learners were found to process information and recall both verbal expressions and gestures in a better way. Lazaraton and Ishihara (2005) offer another insight into the role of gestures in language education by studying the characteristics of the teacher’s talk, and her nonverbal behavior, in relation to her beliefs and preparation. They claim that the investigation of the impact of classroom discourse on learners’ acquisition does not traditionally link learning to the teacher’s interpretation of classroom dynamics. The authors support the idea that there should be a dialogue between teachers and researchers: the former with their self-reflection on their teaching and the latter with their skills in describing classroom discourse. This collaboration can improve the understanding of language education. In Lazaraton and Ishihara (2005), the teacher becomes aware of her nonverbal behavior as a consequence of her dialogue with the discourse analyst. On the other hand, the discourse analyst is guided by the teacher in the interpretation of the nonverbal behavior occurring during the ESL class observed. This study represents an example of how theory and practice can benefit from the examination of nonverbal behavior in class. The likely consequences can range from a refinement of teaching to a re-evaluation of methodologies. The use of gestures and other nonverbal language in language education was claimed to be a positive methodological choice already in the 1960s, when a group of scholars argued for the integration of speech with gestures. They advocated that speech accompanied by actions is not only better comprehended but also better remembered, internalized, and acquired. The Total Physical Response (TPR) as developed by Asher (1965) is one result of that time and its methodological perspectives. TPR values the performance of actions imparted by a teacher through commands

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

23

and instructions. The assumption is that actions improve learners’ comprehension and overall learning experience. By the same token, commands and instructions help teachers conduct a class and manage its development. Tellier (2008) lists three main roles for teacher’s gestures. One is management of the class, for example gestures that start and end an activity, that question students, or that request silence. Another is evaluation, for example gestures that flag a mistake, that correct, or that praise a student. The third one is explanation, for example gestures that give instructions about syntax, that introduce new vocabulary, or that indicate intonation patterns. A teacher can adopt a number of gestures to organize the stages of a class, from lecturing to requesting a response, from interaction in group or pair to one-on-one exchanges, etc. Deictic gestures can also be useful. A pointing index finger can help the teacher indicate the time left to finish an activity. Teachers can find practical solutions to language problems through gestures that point at objects, or through gestures that show concepts iconically and graphically, or through the body moving in certain ways. As an example, teaching the diminutive and augmentative suffixes in Italian, such as uomo, omone, ometto (Engl. “man, big man, little man”) by means of hand and arm movements, can be a positive and effective way of dealing with the difference in size. Another example is the “OK” gesture used to teach Italian verb suffixes in verbs such as capisc-o, mangi-o (Engl. “I understand, I eat”). The gesture can help draw students’ attention to the vowel “o” in the first-person singular of the present tense. On the other hand, the straight index finger gesture can indicate the vowel “i” in the second-person singular of the Italian present tense capisc-i, mang-i (Engl. “you understand, you eat”). In introducing the subjunctive mode in Italian, a teacher may place a hand either on the head or on the chest at the heart level to reinforce via a gesture that Italian subjunctive typically occurs when verbs in main clauses convey an opinion, such as Credo che… (Engl. “I think that…”), or hope, such as Spero che… (Engl. “I hope that…”), or an emotion and desire, such as Temo che…, Mi piacerebbe che… (Engl. “I am afraid that…,” “I would like that…”). Students are likely to become familiar with the nonverbal characteristics of their teacher’s behavior. Class dynamics are consequently affected by rules and patterns of behavior that are established between teachers and students over the course of a class. It is also true that gestures can introduce learners to cultural information that defines the target language and community of speakers. In classes of Italian, for example, the teacher may use a hand gesture to mimic the action of picking up the espresso cup in which Italian coffee is

24

Chapter Two

typically served. While talking about Italian coffee, the visual-kinetic representation of the teacher’s words conveys specific cultural information. Learners visualize this additional information in association with the words “Italian coffee” and they may perform the same gesture as they later talk about it. Various examples of cultural conventions emerge through nonverbal behavior in communication. Turn-taking in conversations is one frequently quoted case because it is usually orchestrated by transition signals. The gestures that end a speaker’s turn of speech might not be recognized by the interlocutors who are unfamiliar with the conventional signs of a specific language. The results can be unwanted interruptions and confusion (cf. Wilcox, 1998). Across languages, there are indeed different parameters of acceptability in interruptions of turns of speech (cf. Poyatos, 1988). Intonation patterns, facial expressions, beats, etc. can indicate a change in topic or the fact that an idea is linked to several ideas (cf. Duncan, 1976). Knowledge of these nonverbal cues can help learners become more socio-linguistically sensitive and proficient in the target language. They are likely to formulate their message more appropriately so that it will be better received and understood. Moreover, learners familiar with the nonverbal conventions of the target language are facilitated in the decoding of contents and, occasionally, can guess the meaning of unknown expressions by relying on nonverbal cues. Gestures whose form and meaning are culturally defined within a specific community of speakers (e.g., emblems) require special attention in language classes. Besides formal characteristics, gesture meanings, register, and appropriateness of use, are also to be explained to language learners. Learning the typical gestures of a target language is a debated issue in today’s language education. Scholars discuss how and when learners should be introduced to the gestures of a target speech community. In first language acquisition, the development of verbal and nonverbal knowledge proceeds throughout people’s lifetime. Babies begin to communicate verbally and nonverbally with the people around them in their first year. As Sachs (2001) points out, children gradually learn that a signal, such as a sound or a gesture, can communicate intention. A pointing gesture, for example, indicates what or whom a baby wants. Later on, children become familiar with more types and functions of gestures, and experience will reinforce this knowledge. Armstrong, Stokoe, and Wilcox (1995) argue that infants are extremely attentive to social behaviors. They learn how to behave and they become effective communicators within the socio-cultural environment in which

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

25

they are born. Although forms of behavior are different across cultures, Armstrong, Stokoe, and Wilcox (1995:142) believe that “underlying all of them is communication through gesture.” This position supports the theory that gesture is a precursor to speech. On the other hand, McNeill (1986) says that speech and gesture develop together while a child matures. The author finds that iconic gestures that depict in form and manner “an aspect of the meaning that is simultaneously presented verbally” (McNeill, 1986:107) are well established by the age of two and a half years. Around the age of five, children start to use discourse-related gestures, such as beats, as well as metaphoric and abstract gestures. Growing up, people also learn the gestures of their cultural group. Birdwhistell (1970:8) says that this learning occurs within the first few years of birth and points out that a child needs to learn the “body-motion communicational behavior” of his or her language in order to be a full member of the culture. When, on the other hand, people learn a new language after their mother tongue, there are significant differences between the native speaker’s and the non-native speaker’s experience. This is especially true for adult learners. For non-native adults, the learning of verbal and nonverbal language takes place according to an unnatural order, that is, at different stages. The learning of verbal language typically precedes the learning of nonverbal language. Moreover, adults are bound to be influenced by the notions that they have already acquired in their first language. Hofstede (1991) defines this knowledge “software of the mind.” Kellerman (1983:188) states that “languages bias their speakers towards focusing on events in certain ways” to suggest that adult learners likely use the parameters of their culture of origin to interpret other languages. They are also likely to transfer concepts and values from one language to the other, and to avoid those aspects of a language that they feel to be less transferable. Although the nonverbal behavior of a target language can represent a challenge in language education, language learners are among the most likely subjects to have to negotiate, agree or disagree, with interlocutors belonging to different cultural groups and using nonverbal language that defines their culture of origin. The global world we live in today makes it more and more necessary for language learners to be able to decode not only verbal contents but also nonverbal aspects of communication. This is one good reason for Balboni (2003) to emphasize the importance of teaching intercultural understanding in language classes and developing students’ curiosity and respect towards other people. Similarly, Poyatos (1992a,b) argues that knowledge of the differences among languages promotes cross-cultural understanding and limits stereotypical views.

26

Chapter Two

Particularly in expressing emotional states, nonverbal cues are often regarded as the best code to convey people’s true and deep feelings about events or subjects. Emotional nonverbal behavior is communicated through facial expressions, gestures, and bodily postures (cf. Pavlenko, 2005). Molinsky, Krabbenhoft, Ambady, and Choi (2005) argue that language education should make sure that learners are aware of the cultural values behind target nonverbal language in different cultures. The authors define this preparation as intercultural communication competence, which in their view is associated with gesture learning and the motivation to accept cultural nonverbal norms. As Molinsky et al. (2005:392) state, the acquisition of this competence may require “an explicit, conscious, purposeful effort.” Learners are likely to achieve different levels of adjustment to the new culture depending on how willing they are to accept it. In general, Molinsky et al. (2005) recommend that learners develop at least recognition skills when dealing with new nonverbal behavior. Along the same line, Archer (1997:80) recommends that people “practice gestural humility—i.e., the assumption that the gestures we know from home will not mean the same things abroad, and also that we cannot infer or intuit the meaning of any gestures we observe in other cultures.” Bancroft (1998) identifies the areas that would make learners become more sensitive to other cultures. The first area is kinesics, that is, the use of the body in oral communication. The other areas are paralanguage (i.e., the way something is said); proxemics (i.e., the use of the personal and common space); the environment (i.e., the location in which teaching and learning occur); and oculesics (i.e., the use of eyes to communicate meanings). A teacher who is a member of the target speech community can be an authentic source of information in all of these areas. He or she can use them to teach characteristics of the target culture. As an example, Balboni (2003) considers the Italians’ tone of voice, which is usually high, and the fact that Italians tend to keep in close proximity to their interlocutor. Language teachers need to explain that these characteristics are regular codes of behavior in Italian culture. In sum, there are many pedagogical advantages to a language class that formulates its contents and accomplishes its objectives in a “polycoded” (cf. Düwell, 1989) manner, that is, in various forms. Verbal and nonverbal components and visual and audio elements can all play a role in creating meaning in class. The more varied the material, the better opportunities there are for learners to learn about how to encode and decode information in a target language. Books and language classes usually claim that their approach is communicative, yet they do very little to include nonverbal

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

27

aspects of communication in their programs and contents. It is therefore encouraging to see that the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001) and the American project known as Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (1999) indicate nonverbal behavior as a necessary component in language teaching and learning. The documents draw attention to how languages provide information also through body language, facial expressions, and hand gestures, and encourage language pedagogy to find ways to include target nonverbal codes of communication in class. The following sections of this chapter begin with an examination of the role of gesture as a means to second language acquisition, multilingualism, multimodality, and multicompetence. Attention is paid to the impact that language background can have on the learning of additional languages and on the interpretation and production of target gestures by speakers of different languages. In those settings where multiple languages and cultures come together, it seems even more important to assure a correct understanding, and possible use, of gestures and nonverbal language in general. Multilingual and multicultural Canada is such a context. The census data collected in 2011 testify to the variety of languages present in today’s Canada and to the increase in the combination of languages known by the Canadian population. The chapter ends with a discussion of the role of gestures in Canadian multicultural educational settings, especially in English as a Second Language (ESL) classes and in classes of Italian at three universities in Ontario.

2.1.1. Gesture studies in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) It is a commonly held view that gestures enable the expression of meaning when verbal language is not available to speakers. This has been defined the compensatory role of gestures (cf. Gullberg, 2013b). SLA research has demonstrated that this assumption does not only concern lower levels of proficiency. The examination of different proficiency levels reveals that learners are likely to use a variety of strategies, one of which is gesture. Some early studies confirmed a general increase of gestures in the L2 (e.g., Marcos, 1979). Others found no difference in gesture occurrences between a learner’s native and second language (e.g., Chen, 1990). The former studies usually justify their findings by saying that gestures help L2 learners express themselves when the verbal code is not available to them. The latter state that proficiency and personal communicative styles are in fact the key factors to determine presence of gestures. In examining the communicative styles and proficiency levels of

28

Chapter Two

internationally adopted children from Colombia, De Geer (1992) noted that over two years after their arrival in Sweden, those children gradually decreased their reliance on gestures. Nonverbal language remained, nonetheless, an important means of communication for them (see also Galván and Campbell, 1979). The idea that L2 speakers distribute the information that they want to communicate across speech and gestures is generally accepted in today’s SLA studies (e.g., Gullberg, 2014). Early studies, however, used to leave undefined the position of gestures in language learning, their relationship with speech, and the types of gestures that assume a communicative or cognitive function (see Gullberg, 1998). Taxonomies of communication strategies would interpret gestures mainly as a means that supports L2 speech or as a tool for L2 learners to appeal for assistance (see Faerch and Kasper, 1983; Tarone, 1977). SLA scholars today acknowledge a variety of functions for gestures, and try to clarify the circumstances in which gestures occur and in what relationship with speech they are produced, or interpreted, by L2 speakers. For example, scholars have found that production of gestures can function so as to reinforce, or to complement, or to substitute for speech. In her study, Gullberg (1998) combines a cognitive theory of speech-associated gestures (McNeill, 1992, 2005) with a process-oriented framework for communication strategies (Bialystok, 1990; Poulisse, 1990). The author examines the production of communication strategies by Swedish learners of French and by French learners of Swedish, at different levels of proficiency, both in individual and group behavior. Gullberg’s (1998) analysis reveals that L2 learners use gestures with speech, and they do so in a complementary, rather than substitutive, way. Moreover, Gullberg (1998) finds that L2 speakers use gestures to convey coherent thoughts in their speech, to refer to some points raised earlier or later (e.g., a hand movement that expresses the temporal idea of “now” as opposed to “before”), and to make metalinguistic comments (e.g., a gesture indicating that the speaker is looking for a word). Recently, Gullberg (2011b, 2013b) has reviewed a number of studies to see if we can still use “compensatory” as the main trait defining gestures, that is, occurring when speech is not available to language learners. The author comes to the conclusion that this is too simple a definition. In the first place, Gullberg (2011b, 2013b) notes that gestures more typically accompany lexical approximations rather than complete silence. We can often observe this pattern in language classes when students are looking for the words that they need. Moreover, during moments of disfluencies, speakers may produce gestures that focus on the breakdown itself (i.e., thinking gestures) rather than on the missing words,

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

29

or they may stop gesturing because speech stops (Gullberg, 2011b, 2013b). One can also witness congruency between speech and gestures: absence of information in speech (e.g., a verb incorporating the semantics of an object being moved to a position) is reflected in the absence of the same information in gesture forms. Gullberg (2011b, 2013b), then, points out that types of gestures can resolve difficulties of a different nature, from lexicon to grammar to discourse problems. Personality, communicative style, and type of task can equally impact gesture occurrences. In sum, Gullberg (2013b) cannot say that gestures are always compensatory and she warns that if gestures are to be defined as compensatory, a detailed description of what they compensate for, when, and how is imperative in today’s studies. Gesture occurrences in L2 learners’ performance impact the evaluation of their overall competence. Neu (1990) compared a Japanese learner’s behavior with an Arab learner’s during an interview with an American. The author found that by using nonverbal strategies of communication (i.e., body movement, head position, facial expressions), the Arab learner seemed more proficient than he actually was, as well as more proficient than the Japanese learner, who did not use nonverbal language at all. Neu’s (1990) investigation confirmed that communicative style can work strategically towards the benefits of an interaction. As we read in Yule and Tarone (1990), types and combinations of communication strategies, including gestures, can make communication successful even though speakers’ verbal performance is not grammatically correct. Along the same lines, Fakhri (1984) raised the issue of communication strategies as changing with the narrative genre in which they occur. The author noted how an English speaker, who was learning Moroccan Arabic, used strategies of a different kind depending on whether he was talking about past events or personal experiences. If the content of his speech was very important, he would try to maintain the attention of the listener with the strategies of circumlocution and appeal for help. If he was repeating some information a second time, he would be more elaborate than the first time. Details were provided if time allowed it, if the interlocutors did not know each other, if the discourse required the speaker to make specific comments to keep track of the referents, and so on. The performance of these strategies engaged both verbal and nonverbal codes of communication. Proficiency too has received attention in gesture studies. Gullberg (1998) found that less proficient subjects used more gestures overall, but not necessarily of the strategic type. The author argued that type of problems can affect type of strategies. The author divided “conceptual strategies” from “code strategies.” The former solve lexical problems

30

Chapter Two

whereas the latter solve grammar- and discourse-related problems. Gullberg (1998) noted that, against expectations, conceptual strategies are not typical of low-proficient speakers, nor are code strategies absent in more-proficient L2 users. Moreover, the author found that gestures that replace speech altogether were not preferred over gestures that complement speech. This may be a direct consequence of learners’ interpretation of the nature of L2 interaction. L2 speakers typically try to hide, either consciously or unconsciously, their being at a loss with target speech and look for alternative ways to communicate their original thoughts (e.g., Gass and Selinker, 2001). Their strategic gestures can facilitate the continuation of an interaction. Types of gestures and frequency of gesture occurrence have also been examined in SLA research. Over-explicit gestures seem to be typical of lower levels of proficiency, when from a verbal point of view, learners favor nouns over pronouns. Emphatic and rhythmic gestures are more likely with higher levels of proficiency. This difference has been explained as a trend in language development. Proficient speakers engage in more complex interactions, in which they need to take into account the characteristics of contexts, interlocutors, and topic. In this complex task, gestures can help them reduce the processing load and assist in the organization of speech (cf. McCafferty, 2002). Moreover, Gullberg (2003) noted that in early stages, L2 learners tend to overproduce gestures that create anaphora. Language development entails gaining more confidence in using pronouns in place of anaphoric gestures. Later on, Gullberg (2006) investigated whether L2 speakers’ anaphoric gestures performed in conjunction with over-explicit speech are a communicative strategy. The author created the condition where the interlocutor cannot see the learner’s gestures to test whether gesture would still occur. Gullberg (2006) also tested whether speech changes when gestures are not visible. The author found that the manipulation of visibility did not affect L2 speech. Whether the interlocutor sees anaphoric gestures or not, learners continue to prefer noun phrases over pronouns or zero anaphora, showing that they have not yet acquired anaphoric verbal expressions. This suggests that planning anaphoric language that accounts for gender, number, time, and space is still too difficult a process for learners. Presence of anaphoric gestures hints at a non-communicative function of gestures. Learners use anaphoric gestures to help themselves, just as when native speakers use gestures in communicative contexts where the addressee is absent (e.g., on the phone). In this case, gestures serve as a cognitive strategy and help learners reduce the processing load involved in planning and producing speech. Nevertheless, Gullberg (2006)

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

31

points out that when gestures are visible to the addressee, learners perform them with greater spatial distinction and differentiation than when they are not visible. This fact suggests that learners take the presence of the addressee into account and try to make their speech as clear as possible to them. Gregersen, Olivares-Cuhat, and Storm (2009) videotaped students enrolled in beginning, intermediate, and advanced college-level Spanish classes, who were conversing in dyads, first in Spanish and then in English, to examine their reliance on gestures. The authors found that learners at higher levels of proficiency are more likely to use gestures that enhance the meaning of their speech. This contributes to a greater communicative competence than the less proficient learners achieve. By using more illustrator gestures that accompany or complement or accentuate speech, advanced learners reinforced grammaticality and meaning through the visual channel. The authors claimed that providing additional clarity through gestures is a way for advanced learners to be sociolinguistically competent. Less proficient participants, on the other hand, used gestures that related to their higher levels of anxiety (e.g., playing with one’s hands, touching the face). Gregersen, Olivares-Cuhat, and Storm (2009) argued that these nervous gestures left little room for gestures that could enhance communication. Although rarely used at all, emblems were more frequently employed by beginning than by intermediate or advanced learners. The authors also found that regulatory (e.g., a gesture regulating turntaking) and compensatory gestures (i.e., replacing words altogether) and affect displays (e.g., a gesture expressing emotion) were not used with a significant difference in frequency across the three groups. In comparing performance in Spanish as the L2 and English as the L1, they noted that the participants used more gestures in their first language. Illustrators were also quite recurrent. The authors explained this finding by saying that the gestures that accompany a fully developed language show in a variety of forms. Conversely, in classroom settings, developing abilities in the L2 show a more limited frequency and fewer types of gestures. The occurrence of gestures may also associate with belonging to specific cultures (e.g., Italian vs. Japanese). Gullberg (1998) found that the Swedish learners of French in her study produced more gestures than the French learners of Swedish. This result opposes the popular view that would expect the French, as members of the Latin culture, to be greater users of gestures. Already in the 1940s, however, Efron (1972) provided evidence against a natural tendency to transfer native nonverbal behavior to another language. The author studied two groups traditionally viewed as very expressive from a gestural point of view: first-generation Southern

32

Chapter Two

Italians and Eastern Jews assimilated in New York City. Efron (1972) analyzed the gesture styles of the two groups in comparison with the styles maintained in their respective cultures, and found that those Italians and Jews who had integrated in the upper social and economic class resembled each other much better than their communities of origin. Efron (1972) concluded that integration into the dominant culture can be a stronger factor than culture of origin when gesture production is concerned. His study suggests that language status (i.e., dominant language vs. minority language) can have an effect on gesture occurrence in a target language. The gestures conventionalized within specific communities of speakers, which are often called emblems (e.g., Ekman and Friesen, 1969), are one type of gesture that poses a challenge to language learners. Like L2 metaphors and idioms, emblems are difficult gestures to acquire. Typically their form does not provide an indication of their meaning. Learners are consequently likely to avoid emblems or to produce them with caution. In the same way, they may avoid using L1 emblems because they view them as less transferable than other aspects of their native language. Kellerman (1983) says that the more distinctive a feature seems to speakers, the less likely it will be transferred from one language to another. This concept can be expected to have an effect on gesture occurrences as well. Yet we cannot exclude the possibility of seeing L2 speakers use their native nonverbal features in a target language. It is to be expected that learners’ gestural characteristics have an effect on the native interlocutors. For example, native speakers may judge learners’ overuse or insufficient use of gestures as a less natural, less efficient way of conveying meaning in the L2. Interpretation and learning of cultural meanings in gestures have been investigated in SLA research. Scholars have questioned whether language and culture of origin influence the interpretation and production of those gestures and whether it is possible to acquire L2 culturally specific gestures. Gullberg (2006) says that little is known about this topic, especially when multilingual speakers are involved in the studies. Explanation and teaching of target emblematic gestures is generally believed to be beneficial to language learners, especially when the gesture form does not reproduce the referent in obvious ways. This applies to natural settings as well as to the classroom setting. Mohan and Helmer (1988) used a guessing game to test the ability of English native children and English second language (ESL) children to understand thirty-six emblems and illustrators. The authors found that ESL children understood fewer of the gestures than native speakers. Similarly, Jungheim (2006) investigated whether language learners and native

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

33

speakers of Japanese recognize and produce the Japanese “hand fan” refusal gesture (i.e., open right hand, with palm to the left, moved back and forth in front of the face, as if moving the air around with a fan to make it feel cooler), and if they feel this is an easy-to-interpret gesture. Jungheim (2006) found that the native speakers fare better at recognizing the form of the gesture as a refusal, and at producing language that is appropriate to the gesture itself. This fact suggests that it is difficult for language learners to acquire both gesture and language accompanying it. On the other hand, both groups said that the gesture was easy to understand. Jungheim (2006) argued that it is possible that learners understood the gesture as negation but they may have not been able to express themselves appropriately with refusal language on the gesture interpretation test. This shows a discrepancy between perception of ability to understand and ability to interpret. Contrary to Jungheim (2006), Allen (1995) noted that emblems accompanying French expressions promoted vocabulary retention and recognition and learning of gestures. By adding a kinesic component to the traditional ways of dealing with new vocabulary (i.e., hearing, writing, reading), language retention was enhanced. While working with Italian gestures and learners of Italian in the U.S., Nardotto Peltier and McCafferty (2010) identified three stages of L2 gesture learning in relation with proficiency levels. The authors noted that beginner L2 learners do not use or imitate L2 gestures but observe gesture use in context. More proficient L2 learners start producing L2 gestures through imitation and only later may they engage in spontaneous uses. Another area of investigation is the sequence of gesture learning in native and second languages. Common patterns have been found. Emblematic and deictic gestures are noticed in children before they start speaking (Bates, Bretherton, Snyder, Shore, and Volterra, 1980; Masur, 1983), whereas symbolic gestures (i.e., hand gestures mimicking an event or object either concretely or abstractly) and beats (i.e., gestures that mark time) appear as children start speaking. The rate of symbolic gestures in children increases with language proficiency (Nicoladis, Mayberry, and Genesee, 1999). These differences have been observed also in deaf children (Morford, Singleton, and Goldin-Meadow, 1995) and in bilingual children (Nicoladis, Mayberry, and Genesee, 1999). In SLA, Gullberg (1999) noted that intermediate L2 learners with French and Swedish as native tongues used more symbolic gestures when they were retelling a story in the L1 than in the L2, but used more deictic gestures in the L2. It is important to remember that while symbolic gestures and beats are related to speech, deictic gestures can occur without speech and they can

34

Chapter Two

be observed when speech is still missing or weak. In their study with advanced Spanish-English adult learners, Sherman and Nicoladis (2004) confirmed the trend. The authors found that advanced learners tend to use more deictic gestures in their second language than in their first language. Gullberg (1999) noted a much higher rate of deictic gestures in her intermediate learners compared to the advanced learners in Sherman and Nicoladis (2004). Deictics were used to solve grammatical difficulty, particularly the idea of tense, and to refer to specific characters or objects (Gullberg, 1999). Sherman and Nicoladis (2004) did not find strong evidence that deictic gestures solve grammatical difficulties in advanced learners. The authors argued that their learners were so advanced that they had few grammatical difficulties and that the high rate of deictic gestures was a strategy left over from an intermediate stage of language acquisition. Sherman and Nicoladis (2004) could not confirm Gullberg’s (1999) higher rate of symbolic gestures in the L1 than in the L2. Again, the authors said that the advanced learners in their study were probably too proficient to show a difference from their L1. Nevertheless, the advanced learners used symbolic gestures to solve lexical difficulty, which was also the case with the intermediate learners in Gullberg (1999). Symbolic gestures helped learners retrieve words, which is more common a practice among L2 learners compared to native speakers. In conclusion, different types of gestures support the speech of learners even at high levels of proficiency. In Sherman and Nicoladis’s (2004) view, the difference between deictic and symbolic gestures in L2 learners probably reflects the fact that deictic gestures are typically learned in childhood whereas symbolic gestures appear later and develop with speech. The typological characteristics that differentiate the languages of the world (see Talmy, 1991) have also been considered in the examination of gesture occurrences in native and non-native speakers. This area of investigation studies the concept of cross-linguistic influences among languages with or without the same historical origin (Jarvis and Pavlenko, 2008; Kellerman and Sharwood Smith, 1986), and the concept of thinkingfor-speaking (Slobin, 1996). In learning a new language, people are likely to transfer gesture and speech patterns from their native language, particularly with respect to how thinking-for-speaking about motion events is rendered in a target language. Negueruela, Lantolf, Rehn Jordan, and Gelabert (2004) argue that the relationship between gesture and speech and the communicative potential of each modality are not usually taught in language classes. This fact makes language learners unaware of the differences that distinguish the native language from other languages. As a

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

35

consequence, learners may develop a wrong interpretation of how speech and gesture organize themselves in the target language. This was the case in Pika, Nicoladis, and Marentette (2006), who worked with Spanish and French, two high-frequency gesture languages, and English, a lowfrequency gesture language, and found that knowledge of a high-frequency gesture language likely produced an increase of gestures in the lowfrequency gesture target language. In considering how speakers express thinking-for-speaking patterns through gestures, McNeill and Duncan (2000) observed that Spanish and English speakers coordinate their gestures differently with motion verbs. Spanish speakers tend to focus their path (i.e., direction) gestures on path verbs and they typically express manner through lexicon, or gestures, or a combination of both. English speakers, instead, focus their path gestures on satellites (e.g., prepositions) and encode manner in the verb, as in the phrasal verb “to walk out.” They sometimes indicate manner through gesture but only if it is also expressed lexically, usually through a manner verb (e.g., “to swing”). McNeill and Duncan (2000) argue that this is the way English speakers want to bring manner of an event into focus. As the authors explain, typologically, English has a rich inventory of verbs that encode motion and manner at the same time (e.g., “to climb”). To bring manner into focus, English speakers need to encode it in speech and in gesture. In contrast, Spanish does not have the same variety of manner verbs and normally encodes manner through gesture. For this reason marking manner in Spanish is a “challenge appearing only when it is a focused component, and it is often omitted even when it is potentially significant” (McNeill and Duncan, 2000:152). The authors call “manner fog” the presence of a manner gesture in the absence of verbally marked manner, which, they say, is a frequent pattern in Spanish. Other studies have revealed that path of motion is also encoded in different ways in the languages of the world. Verb-framed languages (i.e., Romance, Semitic, and Japanese) typically encode path on the verb, while satellite-framed languages (i.e., Indo-European except Romance, FinnoUgric, and Chinese) encode directionality on a satellite, an adverb, or a particle (Talmy, 1991). Kellerman and Van Hoof (2003) found crosslinguistic variation among the gestural patterns of native speakers of English, Dutch, and Spanish, and Dutch and Spanish learners of English. The gestures produced by Spanish native speakers showed the same pattern noted in Stam (1999), that is, Spanish speakers place a gesture on the verb which expresses the element of path (e.g., “salir”). This timing differs from the typical English pattern, where the path gesture occurs on the satellite (Engl. “out” in “going out”). Kellerman and Van Hoof (2003)

36

Chapter Two

then noted that the speakers of Dutch and English, while belonging to the same typological group (i.e., satellite-framed languages), differ in their gestural patterns. Native Dutch speakers tend to focus their path gestures on the satellite, while native English speakers more likely focus their path gestures on both the verb and the satellite. The authors advance the hypothesis that the different word order in the two languages influences such a result. In English, the link between verb and satellite is indeed more contiguous than in Dutch. When examining L2 learners of English, Kellerman and Van Hoof (2003) found both Spanish and Dutch learners emphasize their path gestures on the verb. The authors concluded that the Spanish speakers were still thinking-for-speaking according to the Spanish L1, but they could not explain why the Dutch speakers’ gestures occurred with the verb instead of the satellite. Stam (2006) too examined the expression of path in native Spanish and native English speakers and two groups of Spanish learners of English, at the intermediate and advanced level. As the author explains, in Spanish path is typically expressed through clauses (i.e., separate verbs), and through path gestures co-occurring with verbs. In English, path is expressed through satellites and the accumulation of path components within a single clause (e.g., “the boy ran out of the classroom into the park across the street”). From a gestural point of view, English expresses path especially through path gestures on satellites, on verbs and satellites, on ground noun phrases (e.g., “classroom” in the example above), but sometimes also on verbs and by the accumulation of path gestures within a single clause. Stam (2006) noted that the L2 learners in her study were in between native and target thinking-for-speaking patterns. In speech, the majority continued to express each path component in a separate clause instead of accumulating information in one clause. On the other hand, learners sometimes used satellites to indicate path in speech, which suggests a more target-like pattern. Stam (2006) argued that more research is needed to clarify the question of whether this variation is an indication of transfer from Spanish L1 or an indication of developmental stages. From a gestural point of view, both groups showed an increase of path gestures co-occurring with satellites and verbs and satellites, following the L2 English pattern. Nevertheless, the L2 learners did not accumulate path gestures in single clauses as the native English speakers do. This result parallels the same pattern found in speech. Yet, the L2 learners used path gestures co-occurring with satellites, which suggests that they recognize the importance of the particle in the expression of path in English. As Stam (2006) remarks, Spanish learners of English have begun to note the importance of the satellite but the overall characteristics of their speech

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

37

and gestures suggest that they are not yet aware of a different pattern of thinking-for-speaking about motion in English and in Spanish. Yoshioka and Kellerman (2006) studied ground reference in L2 narration and provided other evidence that L1 speech and gesture patterns are repeated in L2 speech and gestures. Ground is the entity that is located or moving in relation to another entity (Talmy, 1991), such as “classroom” in “the boy ran out of the classroom.” The authors examined the way in which Dutch learners of Japanese introduce ground reference in speech and gesture in comparison with Dutch and Japanese native speakers. Dutch is a satellite-framed language whereas Japanese is a verb-framed language. In speech, Dutch and Japanese native speakers tend to introduce ground reference in association with a verb describing events involving the protagonists (Yoshioka and Kellerman, 2006). As the authors remark, in narrations where actions take place less information of the setting is usually given. Yet, in comparison with Dutch native speakers, Japanese native speakers talk more about ground as existence (e.g., “there is a river”). This finding is confirmed by Slobin (1996), who states that speakers of verb-framed languages typically describe location with more details than speakers of satellite-framed languages. In considering the gesture data, Yoshioka and Kellerman (2006) found a difference of frequency between the two groups: Dutch native speakers introduce through gestures one-third of ground reference whereas Japanese native speakers do so almost two-thirds of the time. As the authors point out, this difference contradicts a commonly held view that Asian speakers prefer not to gesture (e.g., Chen 1990; Neu 1990). Moreover, the authors noted that L1 Dutch speakers depict in equal proportions the form and the characteristics of a referent on one side, and the action and direction on the other side. In contrast, L1 Japanese speakers produce gestures that predominantly depict the form or the characteristics of a referent. Gesture frequency is higher when ground reference is introduced independently of the actions involving the protagonists than when the ground element is in association with events involving the protagonists. In other words, Japanese native speakers make a bigger effort than Dutch native speakers to specify location through gestures, which reflects the tendency observed in speech. When Yoshioka and Kellerman (2006) examined the L2 speech data, they found that the Dutch learners of Japanese introduce ground reference as information complementary to the action performed by the protagonists, and rarely independently of events involving the protagonists. From a gestural point of view, L1 Dutch patterns are revealed rather than target Japanese patterns. Half of the learners’ gestures depict action or direction,

38

Chapter Two

which rarely occurs in Japanese L1. Yoshioka and Kellerman (2006) concluded that the introduction of ground reference in L2 speech and gesture is another case where the typological characteristics of the learners’ native language appear in the learning of a target language. In discussing the encoding of meaning in speech or in gesture as dependent on the linguistic habits that speakers transfer from one language to another, SLA research needs to take into account the verbal and nonverbal possibilities available in a language (see Kita and Özyürek, 2007). Negueruela, Lantolf, Rehn Jordan, and Gelabert (2004) investigated the concept of thinking-for-speaking in the expression of manner and path by advanced English and Spanish L2 speakers, in comparison with native speakers of the respective languages. The authors noted that both groups express manner in gestures, which could be interpreted to mean that there are no differences between the two groups. Conversely, Negueruela et al. (2004) explained that the Spanish speakers of English continue to rely on gestures in the expression of manner by transferring a pattern from the L1 into the L2. The English speakers of Spanish, on the other hand, do not express manner in speech because they do not find the verbal means to do so. Since they are used to encoding manner, they need to rely on gestures as a compensatory strategy. Negueruela et al. (2004) argued that the L2 speakers did not in fact shift their L1 patterns of thinking-for-speaking to the L2 patterns. The L2 speakers continue to talk about motion following the conceptual meanings that they have internalized from their native linguistic habits. For the L1 English speakers, manner is to be brought to the fore, while for the L1 Spanish speakers, path of motion and physical setting are perceived as the salient pieces of information. These linguistic and perceptual habits are difficult to reorganize. As Negueruela et al. (2004) point out, this does not mean that learners are not good communicators in a target language unless or until they modify their thinking-for-speaking patterns. The authors believe that all gestures are significant in communication. In the case of L2 learners, gestures can however reflect the struggle between two patterns of thinking-forspeaking. One other finding in Negueruela et al. (2004) is lack of instances in which L1 English speakers mark manner through gesture with verbs such as “jump” or “fall.” They use gestures on path satellites and grounds instead. The authors assume that those verbs probably do not describe the nuances of manner events as other manner verbs do. Negueruela et al. (2004:143) propose to distinguish “between ‘basic manner verbs’ such as jump, fall, run, throw, walk, climb, all of which have frequently occurring equivalents in V-languages1 such as Spanish (saltar, caerse, correr, tirar,

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

39

caminar, subir), and more nuanced verbs such as stomp, romp, trudge, stagger, swagger, sweep, etc. which do not.” It is relevant to note that Negueruela et al. (2004) could come to this conclusion by examining speakers’ gestural behavior more than speech. In other words, gestures provided more insights into the experience of language learning and use compared to speech alone. The literature on gesture studies in SLA discusses then the case of placement. People gesture differently depending on the way their language encodes the semantics of verb placements (e.g., “to put”). In describing and in gesturing the action of putting something somewhere, English, Dutch, and French native speakers behave differently (cf. Gullberg, 2009a,b; Gullberg, 2011b). English and French typically indicate the direction of the motion with a flat or relaxed hand movement. Dutch native speakers, instead, use hand gestures that reflect the obligatory distinction between two verbs, zetten “set” and leggen “lay,” which depends on the characteristics of the object being moved and its final position (i.e., vertical vs. horizontal). In learning Dutch as L2, English native speakers have difficulties acquiring the semantic distinction of Dutch placement verbs even if English makes a similar distinction but with the lowfrequency verbs “set” and “lay” (Gullberg, 2009a). Like any other new and complex linguistic aspect, the acquisition of Dutch placement verbs and the relative gestural behavior is bound to take place in stages. As Alferink and Gullberg (2014) discuss, cases of overgeneralization (e.g., use of one verb for both meanings) and of under specification (e.g., absence of a hand shape reproducing both the characteristics of an object being moved and its end position) can be found in learners of Dutch as L2. Interestingly enough, some recent studies with multilingual speakers have brought to the surface another line of research: transfer of speech and gesture patterns occurs not only in one direction, from the L1 to the L2. Evidence of bidirectional cross-linguistic influence has been found, even when knowledge of the L2 is still at the intermediate level. Reciprocal influence has emerged in gesture patterns. Usually this finding concerns advanced bilingual speakers or speakers who have spent an extensive period of time living in the target language community. As Brown and Gullberg (2012) point out, different domains in the first language of these populations are affected by the length of exposure to another language. In their recent studies, however, Brown and Gullberg (2010, 2011) found that multicompetent native Japanese speakers with intermediate knowledge of English relied on a combined L1–L2 system when they had to convey path of motion in their L1. They used verbs typical of a monocompetent Japanese, but also adverbs more typical of a monocompetent English.

40

Chapter Two

Moreover, the Japanese users of English encoded only path of motion in gesture when both manner and path of motion were present in speech, whereas monocompetent Japanese used gestures more redundantly in relation to speech (Brown and Gullberg, 2008). This suggests the influence of the English norm (i.e., manner typically expressed in speech rather than gestures) in the Japanese users of English. Finally, the same multicompetent Japanese speakers favored observer viewpoint in gesture compared to monocompetent speakers, who used character viewpoint instead. It is to be noted that monocompetent English speakers also prefer observer viewpoint gestures (Brown, 2008). Taken together, all the studies reviewed in this section suggest that it is possible to gain a more comprehensive understanding of learners’ interlanguage, even at the lower levels of proficiency, through the examination of speakers’ gestures. The evaluation of whether learners’ gestures still preserve characteristics of the language of origin or alternatively align with the characteristics of the target language, or combine different patterns, or show a unique profile that is not found in either source or target language, not only provides a better view of the progress that learners have made in the target language. It can also shed some more light on the changes that language learning is likely to produce in the first language of the speakers considered (cf. Cook, 2003; Cook and Bassetti, 2011; Pavlenko, 2011). This review of studies also indicates that the field has come a long way since the time when gestures were regarded principally as a means for L2 speakers to appeal for help. Many more functions and roles of gestures are now acknowledged in the learning and use of second or multiple languages. Thanks to gesture, the scope of SLA theories has thrived and new venues of investigation have been indicated.

2.1.2. Gestures as a means to multilingualism, multimodality, and multicompetence Multilingualism refers to the ability of speakers to use different languages. Definitions of multilingualism may be stricter or broader depending on how many languages are included in the concept as well as the level of knowledge of those languages. When bilingualism and any level of proficiency in a language are included, we have a wide-ranging definition of multilingualism. By adding knowledge of nonverbal languages, multilingualism becomes an even broader concept. On the other hand, multimodality defines the variety of resources that help create and interpret meaning. Images, actions, and sounds are all part

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

41

of multimodality. Daily activities in modern society are based on multimodality. Books and writing systems by themselves are no longer used alone in society and in communication. It is true that the image and the screen produce important contributions to the world’s literacy (cf. Kress, 2003). As a consequence of this, educators are called to consider not only what to teach in school but also how to teach it (cf. Jewitt, 2008). Multimodality can expand the very concept of literacy in classrooms as well as the characteristics of interaction among students, or between students and teachers. Moreover, the fact that geographical and social boundaries are less marked in today’s world produces an effect on the ways people interact with one another and creates new modes of communication (e.g., Facebook, tweeting, blogs, etc.). Young people are the most likely subjects to experience this kind of development. Besides multilingualism and multimodality, multicompetence is another concept emerging from the literature on language studies and communication. Multicompetence was originally defined as “the compound state of a mind with two grammars” (Cook, 1991:112). It then changed to “knowledge of two languages in one mind” (Cook, 2007:17) in order to limit the association of grammar with syntax. As Cook (1992) advocates, a multicompetent language user is not the equivalent of two monolinguals together but an individual with a unique combination of languages. This combination of linguistic knowledge, Cook (1992) comments, is not bound to stay the same. Multicompetence is a dynamic phenomenon, where the interaction of different languages changes the linguistic knowledge of a multilingual person. Multicompetence questions whether we can still talk about monocompetence in today’s multicultural and multilingual world. It is indeed becoming rare to find people who are not exposed to a variety of languages in their lifetime. By the same token, the dynamic nature of linguistic knowledge questions the point when monocompetence becomes multicompetence, and whether multicompetence can return to be monocompetence (see the case of people who after emigrating to foreign countries progressively lose proficiency in the language of birth). From these few concepts, we can understand that multilingualism is defined not only by the variety of languages, but also by the modalities and competences that a speaker uses in order to carry out communication with other people. The study of multilingualism usually ranges from sociolinguistic to psycholinguistic to educational perspectives. Interest in multilingualism as a sociolinguistic phenomenon originates from the mobility of people in today’s society. Depending on the geographical area of the world that we consider, we can witness more or less evident cases of multilingualism.

42

Chapter Two

Asia and Africa are the most multilingual societies. Although English is the international language par excellence and is learned all over the world, a revival of minority languages is also taking place in many countries. This is the consequence of government policies that aim at protecting those languages under threat of disappearing or that have an important cultural impact (see the case of regional dialects in Italy). There is then the case of immigration, which usually contributes to the maintenance of a language in places where other majority languages are used. Immigrant languages become part of the language scenario of a country and can even develop distinctive characteristics depending on where those languages are located. An example of this is given by the Italian immigration to Canada or Australia. In these predominantly English-speaking societies, Italians have developed the linguistic phenomenon known as “italiese,” which is the result of cross-linguistic influences among English, standard Italian, and regional variations of Italian (cf. Bettoni, 1993; Clyne and Cassia, 1999; Clivio, 1975; Danesi, 1982; Pietropaolo, 1974, 2010). From a psycholinguistic perspective, multilingualism is studied to examine the impact that it has on the brain. Multilingualism has been found to improve cognitive skills, such as memory and intuition (e.g., Clark and Paivio, 1991; Cohen and Otterbein, 1992). It helps enhance first language skills (cf. Cook, 2002). It also produces non-linguistic results by making people aware of other cultures; it enables communication with people of different countries; it promotes cross-cultural understanding; and it facilitates work opportunities (e.g., Poyatos, 1992a,b). From an educational perspective, schools provide the context for multilingualism to develop. As Cenoz (2009) remarks, although media help easy access to languages of different kinds, schools still play an important role in promoting the teaching of foreign languages and of contents in a language different from the mainstream language. Multilingualism in schools serves to promote awareness of language diversity through learners of different backgrounds (in Canada see Dagenais et al. 2007). Educational systems reflect the beliefs and the attitudes of their society. If multilingualism is important within a specific group or a society, then educational programs are likely to embrace this value (cf. Cenoz, 2009). Multilingual educational programs may teach a language that will not replace students’ first language, or they may teach other languages to enrich students’ cultural background. Examples of educational experiences that promote the learning of more languages in Canada are immersion programs, where English-speaking children have

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

43

French as one of the languages of instruction, and French schools, where French is the dominant language of instruction. Multilingual education is more challenging an objective than bilingual education. The aims of multilingual education are wider in scope. Cenoz (2009:32) attempts a definition of multilingual education when she states that “multilingual education implies teaching more than two languages provided that schools aim at multilingualism and multiliteracy.” In order to account for the many variables that participate in multilingual education, Cenoz (2009) adopts the concept of a continuum of variables from Hornberger’s (2007) study of biliteracy. The variables are school subject; language of instruction; teachers; school context; linguistic origin and contact between the languages; vitality of the languages (i.e., number of speakers, status of the language, use in the media or linguistic landscape); and students’ use of languages with their immediate social network (i.e., parents, siblings, friends, community). This continuum of variables in multilingual education implies that there is an interaction between the school and the sociolinguistic context in which the school is located (Cenoz, 2009). The continuum makes it possible to accommodate different situations depending on the variables present in each case. Some cases will be defined as more multilingual whereas others will be less multilingual. In Canada, for example, immersion programs started in the 1960s in the Province of Quebec and developed into different types of programs depending on the year of introduction of French and the intensity of its use (cf. Genesee, 1987, 2004; Swain and Lapkin, 1982). In general, multilingualism has received a great deal of support in Canadian society and its educational policies (Duff, 2007). Immersion programs in French have been regarded as a major example of bilingual education because they are not a threat to students’ proficiency in English. Learning another language does not have negative consequences on academic achievements or on the development of the first language (Genesee, 1987, 2004; Swain and Lapkin, 1982; Johnson and Swain, 1997). Proficiency in the target language is, however, likely to be higher in receptive skills (i.e., reading and listening) than productive skills (especially speaking). This is a consequence of the limited opportunities that students generally have to practice the target language outside the school setting (cf. Swain, 1985, 1995). French learning takes place in contexts where the target language is not used outside of the school. Swain and Johnson (1997:6–8) list the following as the characteristics of immersion education:

Chapter Two

44 x x x x x x x x

The L2 is the medium of instruction The immersion curriculum parallels the local L1 curriculum Overt support exists for the L1 The program aims for additive bilingualism Exposure to the L2 is largely confined to the classroom Students enter with similar (and limited) levels of L2 proficiency The teachers are bilingual The classroom culture is that of the local L1 community.

Multilingual perspectives in education are to be used to define goals, lesson planning, and assessment procedures (Cenoz, 2009). With attention to the latter, assessment of students who are learning different languages at the same time cannot be carried out through a comparison between learners’ proficiency and the native speakers’ monolingual norm. Competence in multilinguals is more complex a concept than a mere comparison between learners’ interlanguage and target norm. BleyVroman (1983) calls this a comparative fallacy. Multilingual education needs to be based on more holistic procedures, which evaluate learners’ overall linguistic preparation (i.e., multicompetence). Moreover, multilingual education needs to account for the factors that contribute to cross-linguistic influences in a multilingual speaker. Among them, there are the level of proficiency in different languages; order of acquisition; typological distance among languages; and frequency and recency of use (cf. De Angelis, 2007; Williams and Hammarberg, 1998). It is a fact that speakers of different languages develop skills that are not found in monolinguals. Comparisons between multilinguals and monolinguals have revealed that multilinguals use strategies with a greater flexibility and in accordance with the task that they are asked to carry out. Multilinguals may be more likely to change strategies in their learning process because they can perceive the strategy that is more effective (e.g., Nation and McLaughlin, 1986; McLaughlin and Nayak, 1989; Nayak et al. 1990). In addition, knowledge of two or more languages usually favors metalinguistic awareness. Multilinguals typically gain critical understanding of the way different languages work (cf. Jessner, 2006). Motivation and language learning aptitude are other important factors to consider in multilingual education. Multilingual education can also have an effect on identity and cultural attitudes. The status of a language, such as majority vs. minority language, can equally affect people’s views on a language. Multilingual education needs to take into account the social networks in which students are involved and the way these may influence their opinion and their motivation to learn an additional language.

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

45

In sum, multilingual education promotes a connection between language learning and the educational and sociolinguistic context in which it takes place. Instead of establishing hard boundaries between languages, multilingual education adopts a holistic approach to research and school practices. As Cenoz (2009) remarks, educational systems have usually separated teachers and classrooms of different languages. They have implemented planning and assessing practices for different languages and they have followed the policy of using only the target language in class. Traditionally, they have also emphasized the monolingual’s model of reference. However, research in bilingualism and multilingualism has repeatedly stated that bilinguals and multilinguals are different speakers from monolinguals (e.g., Cook, 1995; Grosjean, 1992, 2008). This fact needs to be accounted for with the aim of finding new educational practices that appropriately consider multilinguals’ overall linguistic preparation. Supporters of multilingual education have proposed some educational procedures. Shohamy (2006) states that multilingual and multimodal education can be achieved through the acknowledgement of competences in different languages and in multiple codes of communication, including visuals and the variety of signs and symbols. Similarly, Jaffe (2007:51) states that identities are “a potentially uneven mixture of codes, practices and competencies distributed across different individuals and different moments and domains of social action.” Bilingual and multilingual speakers rely on such varied linguistic repertoire depending on needs and situations. Educational programs cannot ignore the different codes of communication available to speakers of different languages. For this reason, Jessner (2006) and Gafaranga (2007) regard code-switching as a resource rather than a practice to be discouraged. Code-switching, they say, is a useful tool for students to realize the potential of different languages and develop metalinguistic learning strategies. Cenoz (2009) advocates the study of multilingual identities in the school context. The author says that it is important to conduct ethnographic research inside the classrooms where different languages are used and taught, and examine the roles and functions of each language. This analysis can reveal the presence of new forms of communication (e.g., chatting) and the impact of majority or minority languages; it can also inform about the influence that history, society, and politics have on educational practices, policy, and planning procedures. Educational practices can also benefit from research conducted in the area of emotions and the way they are viewed and expressed verbally and nonverbally by speakers of different languages (cf. Pavlenko, 2005).

46

Chapter Two

Having introduced some general concepts that are at the base of multilingualism and multilingual education, this section will now focus on gesture as an additional mode of communication and as a component of multilingualism. Through their visual and kinetic elements, gestures can offer to multilingualism the possibility of creating meaning in alternation to the verbal and textual codes. Different gesture forms can lend themselves to a variety of interpretations. This is especially true when world communities come into contact. Kita (2009) discusses the four factors that influence such a variation. In the first place, the author says, the way a gestural form is associated with specific meanings is bound to change across cultures. The most significant example is given by emblematic gestures, whose form can acquire different meanings depending on the culture under examination. For example, the physical characteristics of the “OK” gesture coincide with the characteristics of a vulgar gesture in Greece and Turkey (Morris et al. 1979). Although maybe surprising, seeing that they are often regarded as universal gestures, pointing gestures also vary across cultures. This is not only with respect to the shape of the hand and the finger pointing (e.g., index-finger pointing while the palm is vertical or down), but also with respect to what part of the body is used to point. The indexfinger gesture is generally well known. However, specific cultures can use an open hand, lips, eyes, or movements of the head to perform a pointing gesture. As Kita (2009) explains, depending on its characteristics, pointing attributes different degrees of relevance to a referent. An index finger pointing directly to an object or subject while the palm is kept down puts that referent in focus. However, an index finger pointing when the palm is kept vertical makes the referent relevant but not in focus. Kendon (2004) too argues that there is a relationship between the forms of pointing (i.e., fingers, what finger, and position and axis of the palm) and the different implications that the gesture assumes. The author observes a semantic contrast between the index finger and the open hand used in pointing. The former implies the idea of singularity of an object. The latter conveys the status of symbolic, conceptual, or exemplary object. A second factor determining gesture variation across cultures is cognitive diversity (Kita, 2009). In encoding space, some cultures rely on what is known as relative frame of reference. They encode direction and location with respect to one’s body (i.e., right and left are defined on the basis of what is at the right hand or left hand of the speaker’s body). Other cultures, instead, consider the absolute frame of reference, which uses the cardinal direction terms (i.e., east, west, north, and south). This difference is reflected in gesture performance. The way gestures are performed in

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

47

relation to the location of the speaker can reveal the underlying conceptualization of space across cultures. There are cultures where the lateral axis (i.e., left to right) is not codified in words nor in gestures because they do not conceptualize space in relative terms. The representation of time in space can also inform us of cognitive diversity. The axis front-back is used in many Western languages as a metaphor for past and future, whether in speech or in gesture or in both. Not all cultures associate future to the front and past to the back of the body. Núñez and Sweetser (2006) studied the case of Aymara, spoken in Chilean Andes, and found that this language relates future time to the back and past time to the front. For Aymara speakers, time past is known and can be seen. So it is in the front. Time that is to come is unknown and cannot be seen. So it is in the back. This cognitive concept is encoded both in speech and gestures. The third factor of gesture variation across cultures is linguistic diversity. Given that languages allow different lexical and syntactical possibilities, speakers encode meaning in gesture in a parallel way to the verbal possibilities available in their language. This fact makes languages encode meaning in specific ways, which are regarded as typical of those languages. For example, English can describe manner and path of an action in one clause, such as “John drove down.” This syntactical and lexical construction is reflected in gestures because speakers of English are likely to produce manner and path in one gesture, in a parallel way with the one-clause verbal construction. Kita and Özyürek (2003, 2007) confirmed this perspective through their Interface Hypothesis. The authors examined how gesture occurrences reflect differences in verbal construction in Japanese, Turkish, and English. They noted that the content of gestures is shaped at the same time by how speech describes an event and by the spatial details that speech does or does not express. Kita and Özyürek (2003, 2007) observed cross-linguistic differences only when manner and path were packaged in a distinctive syntactical way. The authors found that gestures expressing manner and path simultaneously were more common in one-clause descriptions, which are typical in English, than two-clause descriptions, which are more typical in Japanese and Turkish. Manner-only and path-only gestures were found in twoclause descriptions as the typical pattern in a language, or as the result of a transfer from the L1 to the L2, or as an atypical but still possible way of formulating an utterance in a language (Kita and Özyürek, 2003, 2007). The fourth factor of gesture variation across cultures is linked to pragmatics. Gesture uses are regarded as more or less appropriate depending on type of gesture, context of use, and participants involved in

48

Chapter Two

communication. Differences also concern the space occupied in the performance of a gesture. For example, Mediterranean people are known for using the whole extension of their arms in the performance of gestures (cf. Efron, 1972), or for performing gestures approximate to their face (cf. Müller, 1998), which make those gestures easily noticeable by the addressee (cf. Gullberg and Holmqvist, 2006). Gesture variation can also concern gesture area, that is, the area around the speaker’s body where a gesture is performed (i.e., lateral, sagittal, vertical). While comparing Spanish and German speakers, Müller (1998) found that the former produced more gestures above the shoulder height than the latter. Gesture variation across cultures also reflect cultural values. For example, frequent nodding in the Japanese culture by both speaker and listener is performed in order for the interlocutors to show cooperation in a communicative act (see Maynard, 1993). Another example is given by the Taiwanese culture, where instructing through gestures is an important practice between mother and child (see Goldin-Meadow and Saltzman, 2000). In conclusion, this section suggests that multilingualism in today’s educational systems is a feasible objective when it includes the concepts of multimodality and multicompetence. Different means of communication and different competences, whether verbal or nonverbal, can contribute to the construction of knowledge in schools and other educational settings. Gesture is one of these resources. Gesture is a language, it is a modality of communicating, and it entails nonverbal competence. Educational programs are called to respond to new needs that multilingual societies are showing, with particular attention to the variety of means and codes of communication. Moreover, educational programs need to account for the variety of communication tools available in modern society. In so doing, educational programs can broaden the diversity of teaching tools and formulate innovative practices. One major question emerges from the discussion in this section: whether semiotic resources of various kinds produce different learning outcomes. It is likely that people read and interpret reality in alternative ways depending on the means through which they learn. Images and movements (e.g., gestures) can trigger results that complement the learning experience obtained via more traditional codes, such as sounds and written words. This book advocates the importance of investigating the question in order to expand the scope of language pedagogy in multilingual contexts.

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

49

2.2. Gestures in Canadian educational settings The three sections that follow introduce the latest census data concerning the variety of languages spoken and known by the Canadian population today; the position of gesture in Canadian language classes of English and of Italian; and the interpretation and use of gesture in Canadian multicultural educational settings.

2.2.1. The language scenario of Canada: the case of English, French, and Italian For the first time in 2011, Canada distributed to its population a census questionnaire that included three language questions: knowledge of official languages (i.e., English and French), home language, and mother tongue (i.e., the first language learned at home in childhood and still understood at the time of the census). Compared to previous censuses, the most important finding of the 2011 census revealed a higher number of languages reported as mother tongues and as the languages used most often at home. According to the official website of Statistics Canada (www.statcan. gc.ca), the total population of Canada2 (about 33 million people) speaks more than 200 languages as mother tongues or home languages. One-fifth of Canada’s population speaks a language other than English or French at home, either alone or in some combination with English or French. Of these speakers, more than 213,000 people speak an Aboriginal language, and nearly 25,000 use a sign language. Almost one-third of Canada’s population speaks only a non-official language at home. The remaining two-thirds speak a non-official language in combination with either English or French. Nearly 7 million Canadians speak French most often at home. The 2011 census revealed that between 2006 and 2011, the number of people who reported being able to conduct a conversation in both of Canada’s official languages increased by nearly 350,000 to 5.8 million. The bilingualism rate of the Canadian population changed from 17.4 per cent in 2006 to 17.5 per cent in 2011. Overall, 58.0 per cent of the Canadian population speak only English at home, while 18.2 per cent speak only French. 11.5 per cent of the population use English and a language other than French, whereas in 2006 the proportion was 9.1 per cent. 1.3 per cent of the population use French and a language other than English. In 2006 the proportion was 1.0 per cent. Most of these people live in Quebec.

50

Chapter Two

According to Statistics Canada, Asian languages show the strongest growth between 2006 and 2011 as home languages. Tagalog, the Philippine-based language, saw the highest growth (+64 per cent), followed by Mandarin (+50 per cent), Arabic (+47 per cent), Hindi (+44 per cent), Creole languages (+42 per cent), Bengali (+40 per cent), Persian (+33 per cent), and Spanish (+32 per cent). On the other hand, Italian, Polish, Greek, and Chinese show a slight decline as languages used most often at home. The first three are spoken mostly by early immigrants and their descendants. The case of Chinese stands apart. The term “Chinese” refers to people who reported “Chinese” without specifying Mandarin, Cantonese, or other Chinese languages. To indicate “not otherwise specified,” Statistics Canada uses the symbol “n.o.s.” It is probable that the decline in number of speakers of this language mostly reflects a change in the way the 2011 census reported Chinese languages. Previously, Statistics Canada would not distinguish the different Chinese languages. Data were published for only one category: “Chinese.” Overall, the top ten immigrant languages spoken most often at home in 2011 are Punjabi, Chinese n.o.s., Cantonese, Spanish, Tagalog, Arabic, Mandarin, Italian, Urdu, and German. Nearly nine in ten Canadians who said that they speak an immigrant language most often at home live in a census metropolitan area (CMA). As we read in www.statcan.gc.ca, a CMA is a grouping of census subdivisions comprising a large urban area and those surrounding “urban fringes” with which it is closely integrated. To become a CMA, an area must register an urban core population of at least 100,000 at the previous census. According to the 2011 census, the majority (80 per cent) of speakers of an immigrant language live in the following CMAs: Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa-Gatineau. The 2011 census revealed that in Toronto 1,790,000 people, or 32.2 per cent of the total population, speak an immigrant language most often at home, which is the highest proportion among all CMAs. Among these speakers, 35.4 per cent speak one of the following languages: Cantonese (8.8 per cent), Punjabi (8.0 per cent), Chinese n.o.s. (7.0 per cent), Urdu (5.9 per cent), and Tamil (5.7 per cent). The 2011 census also revealed that in Montréal 626,000 people, or 16.5 per cent of the total population, speak an immigrant language most often at home: 17.2 per cent speak Arabic; 15.2 per cent speak Spanish; 8.1 per cent speak Italian; 5.7 per cent, Chinese n.o.s.; and 5.4 per cent a Creole language. These five languages account for more than 50 per cent of the people speaking an immigrant language as their main home language.

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

51

In Vancouver 712,000 people, or 31 per cent of the population, speak an immigrant language most often at home. Of these, 17.7 per cent speak Punjabi, followed by Cantonese (16.0 per cent), Chinese n.o.s. (12.2 per cent), Mandarin (11.8 per cent), and Tagalog (6.7 per cent). These five account for 64.4 per cent of the overall population speaking an immigrant language most often at home. Considering the case of Quebec, the province where French is the majority language and English is a minority language, in 2011 Statistics Canada recorded a higher number of speakers of more than one language at home. According to www.statcan.gc.ca, there was an increase from 3.8 per cent to 5.0 per cent of the population that said that they speak French and a language other than English compared to 2006. Those who speak English and a language other than French increased from 2.5 per cent to 2.8 per cent. On the other hand, Quebec’s population who uses only French at home declined from 75.1 per cent to 72.8 per cent. The people who speak only English also decreased, from 6.6 per cent to 6.2 per cent. Speakers of both French and English at home represent 7.6 per cent of Quebec's population, compared to 7.1 per cent in 2006. About 4.0 per cent of Quebec’s population speak only a non-official language, which is unchanged from 2006. In Montréal, the population that uses only French at home continued the decline that began in 2001. The proportion fell from 59.8 per cent in 2006 to 56.5 per cent in 2011. The same pattern applies to Montréal’s population that speaks only English at home, which went from 10.8 per cent to 9.9 per cent. More people in Montréal reported speaking French in combination with a language other than English at home. In 2011, this is the case of 8.7 per cent of the population, an increase since 2006, when the proportion was only 6.7 per cent. Similarly, in Toronto and Vancouver, where English is the majority language, the population that speaks only English at home continued the decline that began in 2001. In Toronto, the proportion went from 62.5 per cent in 2001 to 59.1 per cent in 2006 and 55.0 per cent in 2011. In Vancouver, the proportions are 65.3 per cent, 62.0 per cent, and 58.0 per cent, respectively. On the other hand, Toronto’s population who reported speaking a language other than English or French in combination with English at home increased from 20.7 per cent in 2001 to 23.0 per cent in 2006 and 27.6 per cent in 2011. The corresponding proportions for Vancouver are 17.8 per cent, 19.7 per cent, and 24.0 per cent, respectively. As far as bilingualism with English and French is concerned, the 2011 census shows a slight increase of bilingual speakers in Canada. According to www.statcan.gc.ca, in 2011 there was a higher number of Quebecers

52

Chapter Two

who reported being able to conduct a conversation in French and English. From 1981 to 2011, the Canadian population increased by nearly 38 per cent. By comparison, the population capable of conducting a conversation in French grew by 30 per cent. Over the same period, the population whose mother tongue is French grew by 16 per cent, while the population with French as their first official language increased by 21 per cent. The 2011 census recorded more than 60 Aboriginal languages grouped into 12 distinct language families. The Cree languages, Inuktitut, and Ojibway are the three most frequently reported Aboriginal mother tongues. The highest proportions live in Quebec (20.9 per cent), Manitoba (17.7 per cent), and Saskatchewan (16.0 per cent). In the province of Ontario, census data show that 68.2 per cent of the population reported English only as mother tongue, 3.9 per cent reported French only, and 25.7 per cent reported a non-official language only. In comparison, the national percentages are 56.9 per cent for English only, 21.3 per cent for French only, and 19.8 per cent for non-official languages only. 79.0 per cent of Ontario’s population speak English only most often at home, 2.2 per cent speak only French, and 14.4 per cent speak only a non-official language. In comparison, the national percentages are 64.8 per cent for English only, 20.6 per cent for French only, and 11.1 per cent for a non-official language only. In Ontario, the three most common nonofficial mother tongues are Italian (2.1 per cent), Chinese n.o.s. (1.6 per cent), and Cantonese (1.5 per cent). In comparison, the most common nonofficial mother tongues at the national level are Punjabi (1.4 per cent), Chinese n.o.s. (1.3 per cent), and Spanish (1.3 per cent). As far as knowledge of official languages is concerned, 86.3 per cent of Ontario’s population know English only, 0.3 per cent know French only, 11.0 per cent declare knowledge of English and French, and 2.3 per cent know neither English nor French. We created the following tables to describe 2011 census data (www.statcan.gc.ca) relative to three cities in Ontario: Toronto as a city and as a census metropolitan area; Hamilton; and Windsor. Specific information is provided about their population, mother tongues recorded, knowledge of official languages, first official language spoken, language spoken most often at home, and other language spoken regularly at home. Besides including English and French as official languages, the tables describe number of speakers of non-official languages, particularly of Italian. The tables offer a spectrum of the linguistic situation of the three cities where we collected data discussed in the following sections of this chapter and in chapter three of this book:

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

Toronto City Mother tongues

Knowledge of official languages

First official language spoken

Language spoken most often at home

Other language spoken regularly at home

Population English French Non-official languages Italian English only

2,615,060 1,317,025 32,665 1,154,245 71,725 2,222,700

French only English and French Neither English nor French English

2,975 227,375 136,035 2,394,450

French English and French Neither English nor French English

36,410 24,475 133,745 1,657,835

French Italian English

15,575 35,025 274,495

French Italian

24,715 25,400

Population

5,583,064

English French Non-official languages Italian English only

2,980,215 63,160 2,314,530 166,415 4,872,015

French only English and French Neither English nor French English

5,005 424,265 240,600 5,189,150

French

69,075

Table 2-1 Toronto (City)

Toronto Census Metropolitan Area Mother tongues

Knowledge of official languages

First official language spoken

53

Chapter Two

54

Language spoken most often at home

Other language spoken regularly at home

English and French Neither English nor French English

47,110 236,545 3,714,190

French Italian English

28,260 63,015 561,955

French Italian

48,935 67,625

Table 2-2 Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (including, for example, the city of Mississauga)

Hamilton Mother tongues

Knowledge of official languages

First official language spoken

Language spoken most often at home

Other language spoken regularly at home

Population English French Non-official languages Italian English only

519,949 378,590 6,765 118,420 16,765 475,350

French only English and French Neither English nor French English

360 28,495 8,960 495,855

French English and French Neither English nor French English

6,655 1,930 8,725 431,670

French Italian English

2,245 6,090 24,595

French Italian

4,380 6,145

Table 2-3 Hamilton (City)

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

Windsor Mother tongues

Knowledge of official languages

First official language spoken

Language spoken most often at home

Other language spoken regularly at home

Population English French Non-official languages Italian English only

210,891 142,795 5,405 55,320 6,395 186,940

French only English and French Neither English nor French English

310 17,435 4,140 197,690

French English and French Neither English nor French English

5,180 1,900 4,060 166,280

French Italian English

1,640 2,600 13,425

French Italian

3,050 2,315

55

Table 2-4 Windsor (City)

The above tables indicate English as the dominant language across the five categories that we selected to examine the linguistic situation of Toronto, Hamilton, and Windsor. French, the other official language, is a minority language as mother tongue and as language spoken or known in the three cities. Among the non-official languages, Italian is both a mother tongue and a language spoken most often or regularly at home. In Toronto city, Toronto CMA, and in Hamilton, Italian counts more speakers than French, both as a mother tongue and as a language most often spoken at home or as other language spoken regularly at home. In Windsor, on the other hand, French ranks above Italian as the other language spoken regularly at home. Moreover, in Windsor the number of speakers who know both official languages is almost four times as high as the number of speakers who know neither language. This proportion is much lower in

56

Chapter Two

Toronto and lower in Hamilton. The significant presence of French in Windsor reminds us of the history of the city. Windsor was settled by the French in the first half of the 18th century.

2.2.2. Gestures in Canadian English Second Language (ESL) classes Although Canada is officially a bilingual country, English is the prominent language throughout its provinces except for Quebec. Over the decades, Canada has built a reputation as a safe country, one that is not only educationally sound, but also politically and environmentally secure. These factors have contributed to making Canada an ideal destination to learn English. Today Canada counts many programs in ESL (English as a second language), which take place in a variety of settings: schools, universities, libraries, and private institutions. People register in Canadian ESL classes either as international students moving to this country to improve their English language skills, or to start a professional and personal life as new immigrants. ESL classes in Canada also cater to the population of children and students who need to develop literacy in English early on in their school years. In the Province of Ontario, the Canadian Ministry of Education (2006) formulated the guidelines for teaching “language” in grades 1 to 8 by including the case of children whose first language is a language other than English or a variety of English significantly different from that used for instruction in Ontario (e.g., English-based Creole languages). For these children, the Province offers ESL programs as well as English Literacy Development (ELD) programs. The latter are programs for children who arrive in Canada with significant gaps in their education, or children who hail from countries where access to education is limited or where the opportunity to develop literacy is poor. The programs also cater to children who have an Aboriginal background and are born in remote communities in Canada. In the Ontario school curriculum, we read that children who have a linguistic background other than English need time to adjust to the new language. They typically undergo different stages of learning, from a silent period, when body language is a means for them to communicate, to the time when they can produce simple phrases, and then become more fluent and confident in using the target language. The passage of time across different learning stages depends on the children’s age of arrival in Canada. The older the students, the greater the language knowledge they have to build (cf. Canadian Ministry of Education, 2006).

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

57

In order to facilitate progress in children’s development of ESL skills, the Canadian Ministry of Education (2006:28) puts an emphasis on “extensive use of visual cues,” which we can interpret to include gestures and other nonverbal language as well. For older students in Ontario, the Canadian Ministry of Education (2007) formulated guidelines in the documents called “English as a Second language” and “English Literacy Development grades 9 to 12.” Students in these programs need to develop linguistic knowledge that their Canadian peers have already acquired. They are likely to possess linguistic and cultural knowledge that pertains to their background language, which according to the Ministry, cannot be undermined but should be maintained and promoted in multicultural Canada. This knowledge enables English learners to function as bilingual and bicultural individuals in the multilingual and multicultural society of Canada (cf. Canadian Ministry of Education, 2007). The curriculum for English as a Second language and English Literacy Development grades 9 to 12 (2007) is organized into four areas of learning: listening and speaking; reading; writing; and socio-cultural competence and media literacy. It is relevant to note that among the sociocultural expectations, appropriate use of nonverbal communication strategies is the first expectation listed: “use English and non-verbal communication strategies appropriately in a variety of social contexts” (Canadian Ministry of Education, 2007:20). The document then states the importance for students of learning how to interact appropriately at different levels of formality, with their peers, teachers, community members, and employers. In order to become socioculturally competent in English, students in ESL and ELD programs need to acquire the skills that enable them to use different language forms and observe behavioral practices in a variety of situations. The Canadian Ministry of Education (2007) indicates that in the first of the five levels of ESL, nonverbal language is essential in the development of listening and speaking skills. For example, students need to be able to respond nonverbally to directions or commands; they need to be able to use nonverbal cues such as nodding to show that they are following a conversation; and they need to be able to perform gestures that provide more clarification to their words. At the same level, the Ontario curriculum states that nonverbal language enables students to act in socio-culturally appropriate ways also within the classroom setting: “use an appropriate speech volume to suit the particular situation; nod to indicate agreement; make appropriate eye

58

Chapter Two

contact with teachers and classmates” (Canadian Ministry of Education, 2007:66, italics as in the original). Similarly, in the first of the five levels of ELD, nonverbal language is a means that enables the development of listening and speaking skills (e.g., pointing to, miming actions). The same applies to socio-cultural skills. Nonverbal communication cues such as eye contact, nodding, gestures, and facial expressions are believed to contribute to the development of English competence in students belonging to ELD programs (cf. Canadian Ministry of Education, 2007). Canadian ESL classes, whether for children or more mature students and adults, are typically multilingual and multicultural. ESL classes in Canada contain participants with a diversified number of mother tongues and general language experiences. In such a setting, educators rightly question what teaching approaches and strategies are suitable to meet the needs of multilingual students. In considering nonverbal behavior, Chamberlin-Quinlisk (2008:39) asks whether there are “thresholds for acceptable behavior that vary from culture to culture” and whether “crossing these thresholds might trigger a negative response.” The author believes that nonverbal behavior has the potential to determine the characteristics of classroom dynamics. For example, a teacher may decide to maintain an immediate relationship with the students (e.g., less physical distance in class, he or she is addressed by the first name), which may help students become more comfortable participating in class activities. On the other hand, parameters of acceptable immediacy and power status in class, as well as perception of values and functions of nonverbal behavior, may vary from culture to culture, and from context to context. There are students who have been educated in different countries, live with parents of different cultures, and learn English as a third or fourth language. Chamberlin-Quinlisk (2008) wonders what interpretation these multilingual students may attribute to nonverbal behavior in class. With particular attention to gesture uses in ESL or EFL (English as a foreign language) classes, much literature discusses the amount and type of gestures that facilitate English learning (see Kellerman, 1992). Other literature focuses on the compensatory clues that gestures provide to the understanding of contents or that illustrate visually the meaning of words (e.g., Dörnyei and Scott, 1997). The idea that gestures promote comprehensible input has found evidence in Lazaraton (2004), who considered the teaching of vocabulary in EFL classes in conjunction with gestures as a successful pedagogical strategy. Sueyoshi and Hardison (2005) investigated the contribution of gestures and facial cues (e.g., lip movements) to ESL learners’ listening comprehension of a lecture. The

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

59

authors found that participants exposed to audiovisual and gesture-face conditions, or the audiovisual and face-only condition, performed better on the comprehension task than the group exposed to the audio-only condition. Sueyoshi and Hardison (2005) also noted that learners at the higher proficiency level scored better across all three stimulus conditions. The authors interpret this finding by saying that because of their more solid L2 experience, learners in the higher proficiency level considered facial cues a valuable source of information. Compared to the lower level, they were better aware of visual cues in general and paid attention to them. Production of gestures by ESL students can correspond to a strategy that helps them complement what they are trying to express in speech during moments of difficulty (cf. Gullberg, 1998). ESL students use gestures also for non-linguistic purposes. For example, gestures can indicate that students are engaged participants in an interaction or in the learning process itself. McCafferty (1998, 2002) found that his learner’s self-talk, also called private speech, was accompanied by gestures in order for the student to negotiate meaning, to gain control of a task, to seek clarification, and to show realization of meaning or sudden understanding. It is indeed true that gestures function to the advantage of ESL learning. Gestures are a tool for teachers to conduct the stages of their class, to enable the interaction between the participants in the class, to facilitate the understanding of contents introduced, and so on. Nevertheless, different assumptions around the meaning and function of gestures are more likely to be triggered in multilingual ESL classes than in monolingual ESL classes. While carrying out periodical observations of ESL classes at the University of Windsor, in Ontario, I could consistently observe different gestural and nonverbal behavior in the two main cultural groups of students present in class: the Chinese and the Arabic. The former are typically very constrained in their gestural behavior, body, and facial expressions; they carry out their tasks very quietly; they speak only when explicitly requested; and they prefer to work on their own even when they are supposed to perform a group work activity. The Chinese group is usually proficient in English grammar and shows correct uses of the language in the written form. Oral performance is, however, more challenging and less fluent. On the other hand, the Arabic group relies on gestures and other nonverbal elements more obviously: voice volume is typically higher than the Chinese group’s; body language tends to be very expressive; and use of gestures is evident through arm and hand movements as well as facial expressions. The Arabic group is usually less accurate from a verbal point

60

Chapter Two

of view, less grammatically correct, but more ready to participate in class, express opinions, and attempt answers. It is not surprising that the ESL teacher of these multicultural classes is confronted with the dilemma of how to use gestures and other nonverbal behavior, and how to handle contrasting styles. The students of a specific cultural group are observant of the students of the other culture, and judge nonverbal behavior according to their native culture parameters. Students may not be comfortable with behavioral styles that belong to other groups, and they may make wrong interpretations or rely on stereotypical views. Misinterpretations from all participants in class, including the teacher, are more likely to occur in multicultural ESL classes than in monolingual ESL classes. The interpretation of gestures by speakers of different languages and cultures is the focus of a number of studies (e.g., Gullberg and McCafferty, 2008; McCafferty and Gullberg, 2008; McCafferty and Stam, 2008), but it remains an area of investigation that needs further insights deriving from the comparison of different languages used in a variety of contexts by a variety of levels of proficiency. Sime (2008) addresses the topic with particular attention to students’ interpretation of their ESL teacher’s gestures. In general, the author finds that multilingual ESL learners consider the teachers’ gestures very significant, particularly in helping comprehension, facilitating learning, and in indicating teacher’s evaluation of performance (Sime, 2006, 2008). ESL students are able to perceive the relevant gestures and select those that aid their learning. When speech is not clear or when new vocabulary is introduced, students tend to focus more on the teacher’s gestures. They realize that these are important moments in class. Consequently, and strategically, they move their attention from the verbal to the nonverbal code of communication. In these instances, the teacher’s gestures assume a cognitive function, helping students think about the meaning of words. Students also recognize those gestures that show teacher’s approval of the class’s response. In this case, gestures have an affective function. By confirming correct output, gestures are likely to reinforce students’ confidence and success (Sime, 2006, 2008). Sime (2008) then notes that different learners agree upon the meaning and function of the same gestures used by a teacher. This is especially the case of emblems and deictic gestures that are also found outside the classroom. Familiarity with gestures, either on the basis of prior experiences or of observation of communicative exchanges outside the school, facilitates the interpretation of nonverbal behavior in class. As Sime (2008:276) says, these are among the strategies of gesture

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

61

interpretation: “making the analogy with the meaning of the gesture outside the class; relating the meaning of the gesture to the speech context in which the gesture occurs; using prior situations in which the gesture occurred as a reference for interpretation; or locating the gesture in relation to simultaneous other NVBs.” During the length of a language course (e.g., a semester), students gradually become acquainted with the teacher’s ways of conducting a class from a nonverbal point of view. A degree of variation in interpretations is still to be expected, especially within a diversified cultural setting such as the one found in multicultural ESL classes. In Sime’s (2008) study, however, interpretation differences do not compromise class dynamics. ESL students are ready to consider cultural differences before making wrong assumptions or interpreting gestures as offensive. Variation in interpretation may also depend on language proficiency: “a gesture that clarifies the meaning of a word for a student at lower level of proficiency may become a confirmatory gesture for a more proficient student or a superfluous move for a very advanced speaker” (Sime, 2008:277). Sime (2008) concludes that gesture training is not only beneficial for students’ learning but for teachers as well. ESL teachers can develop awareness of the potential of gestures in class and use them more extensively for various purposes. Another pedagogical approach that can benefit language classes through gestures and nonverbal behavior is drama. Many educators see language in use as an embodied experience (e.g., Di Pietro, 1987). Drama enables language in use. It creates the opportunity for students to embody a target language and culture. Students assume the role of speakers interacting in specific L2 contexts. This fact puts them in a position to practice a language for defined purposes and, at the same time, use knowledge about how communication takes place in the target language community (e.g., how people shake hands in that culture). Moreover, as part of a drama class, students are expected to ask questions about how they should say something or how to interpret verbal and nonverbal language. This creates another opportunity for them to reflect on target language uses and develop language proficiency. Experiments with drama in ESL classes have shown improvements in students’ fluency and confidence (e.g., Miccoli, 2003). One recent attempt is found in Haught and McCafferty (2008). Six ESL students at a U.S. university took a drama class as part of their ESL training. Much of their learning came into place through imitation of a native speaker who was the instructor of the course, and the peers in class. Students imitated verbal language, for example they asked their instructor to repeat correct and

62

Chapter Two

target intonation patterns. They also imitated nonverbal behavior, in particular the gestures that instructor and peers used to accompany the rhythm of speech or to illustrate speech. Imitation was revealed to be a stepping stone in the students’ language learning. As Haught and McCafferty (2008) remark, the experience is similar to the one a child lives during play time (cf. zones of proximal development in Vygotsky, 1978). Through play, children mature intellectually. They behave and think in ways that are beyond their cognitive state of development. ESL students in drama classes are engaged in verbal and nonverbal roles that are above their level of linguistic development. They learn what to say and how to say it in the target language. They perform societal roles while using the L2. This is a more motivating way of learning compared to using the L2 in decontextualized forms. Haught and McCafferty (2008) noted that just over a period of six months, the ESL learners in their study improved knowledge of and fluency in English. The authors attributed this success to the characteristics of an ESL class combined with a drama class. Some limitations to the use of drama in multicultural ESL classes have nonetheless been pointed out (e.g., Bräuer, 2002). Students who come from different cultural and educational backgrounds may not be comfortable with the characteristics of a drama class. Studying a role and performing it form an atypical class structure. In a drama class, students and teacher are involved in the discussion of roles and of how to render them on stage and in front of an audience. The teacher needs to train students in the dramatic art. A drama class also requires availability of props, the space, and the premises where acting and performing can take place. These are some of the aspects that make the organization of drama classes for ESL students a challenging experience. Practical and logistic needs do not make drama a suitable approach for all educational contexts. Following the discussion of some aspects that concern the position of gestures in multicultural classes, particularly Canadian ESL classes, the next section considers the case of Italian gestures in Canadian multilingual university settings. The section offers data exploring Italian gesture interpretations exhibited by students of different language backgrounds.

2.2.3. Gestures at multilingual Canadian universities: An Italian example In 2006, Salvato (2011, 2015) conducted a study at two universities in Ontario (i.e., University of Toronto and McMaster University) in order to investigate Italian gesture perception and understanding by university students enrolled in beginner’s classes of Italian3. This study revealed in

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

63

the first place a strong case of multilingualism. The participants were grouped into four language classes. Language class 1 refers to learners with knowledge of one language (i.e., their mother tongue) whereas language class 4 includes learners with knowledge of four or more languages, one of which is the mother tongue. As Fig. 2-1 indicates, most participants belong to language class 2 and 3, which suggests that Italian classes in Ontario likely count speakers of at least two or three languages. Fig. 2-1 considers courses on three campuses (i.e., TSG100, TSG101, TSG152, TM100, and M1004) and three levels of language proficiency5:

80 70 60 50

Language Class 1 Language Class 2

40

Language Class 3

30

Language Class 4

20 10 0 TSG100 TSG101 TSG152 TM100

M100

University

Fig. 2-1 Percentages of language classes across university campuses

Fig. 2-2 shows that presence of Romance languages in the participants’ language background reaches 50% or more of their total language knowledge:

Chapter Two

64

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Toronto St. George 100 Toronto St. George 101 Toronto St. George 152 Toronto Mississauga 100 McMaster 100

3

2

4

Language Class

Fig. 2-2 Percentages of Romance languages in students’ backgrounds

French and Spanish score the highest value compared with other Romance languages. Fig. 2-3 indicates the impact of different Romance languages in one of the Italian classes of our study (i.e., TSG ITA100):

25 French

20

Italian

15

Latin

10

Portuguese Romanian

5

Spanish

0 2

3

4

Language Class Fig. 2-3 Number of Romance language speakers in a 100 level class

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

65

A detailed description of the language scenario at the two universities included in the study now follows. Data are organized in accordance with proficiency level, number of languages known, language family, type of language, and number of speakers per category6: TORONTO—ST. GEORGE CAMPUS PROFICIENCY LEVEL

LANGUAGE CLASS

LANGUAGE FAMILY

LANGUAGE

ITA 100

1 (total: 18) 2 (total: 34)

Germanic Albanian Germanic

English Albanian English German Persian French Italian Latin Spanish Polish Russian Japanese Korean Cantonese Chinese English German French Italian Latin Portuguese Romanian Spanish Bulgarian Polish Serbian Arabic Hebrew Japanese Korean Cantonese Mandarin Hokkien

Iranian Romance

Slavic Japanese Korean Sino-Tibetan 3 (total: 33)

Germanic Romance

Slavic

Afro-Asiatic Japanese Korean Sino-Tibetan Other

NUMBER OF SPEAKERS 18 1 34 1 1 14 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 2 33 1 23 8 2 4 2 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1

Chapter Two

66 4 (total: 19)

Germanic Romance

Slavic

Afro-Asiatic Japanese Sino-Tibetan Other

ITA 101

1 (total: 3) 2 (total: 20)

Germanic Germanic Romance

3 (total: 26)

Albanian Germanic Romance

4 (total: 10)

Afro-Asiatic Albanian Celtic Germanic

Hellenic Romance

Slavic Sino-Tibetan Other

English German French Italian Latin Portuguese Romanian Spanish Bulgarian Polish Russian Ukrainian Arabic Japanese Cantonese Mandarin ASL Jamaican Taiwanese English English French Italian Albanian English French Italian Romanian Spanish Arabic Albanian Irish English German Swedish Greek French Italian Spanish Serbo-Croatian Cantonese Mandarin Slovenian Trini

19 7 18 7 3 3 1 13 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 20 6 14 2 26 22 23 1 3 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 9 8 6 1 1 1 1 1

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada ITA 152

1 (total: 0) 2 (total: 9)

n/a Germanic Romance

3 (total: 2)

Germanic Romance

4 (total: 1)

Albanian Germanic Romance

n/a English French Italian Spanish English French Italian Albanian English French Italian Spanish

67

n/a 9 4 4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Table 2-5 Toronto—St. George Campus TORONTO—MISSISSAUGA CAMPUS PROFICIENCY LEVEL

LANGUAGE CLASS

LANGUAGE FAMILY

LANGUAGE

ITA 100

1 (total: 21) 2 (total: 41)

Germanic Germanic Indic

English English Hindi/Urdu Panjabi Persian French Italian Portuguese Spanish Polish Russian Ukrainian Arabic Vietnamese

NUMBER OF SPEAKERS 21 42 1/1 2 1 18 6 3 1 2 1 1 2 1

Tamil English German Hindi/Urdu Panjabi French Italian Romanian

1 32 1 1/3 2 23 8 2

Iranian Romance

Slavic

3 (total: 32)

Afro-Asiatic AustroAsiatic Dravidian Germanic Indic Romance

Chapter Two

68

Slavic Afro-Asiatic Caucasian Dravidian Japanese Sino-Tibetan Other

4 (total: 18)

Germanic Indic Romance

Slavic Afro-Asiatic Finno-Ugric Japanese Korean Sino-Tibetan Other

Table 2-6 Toronto—Mississauga Campus

Spanish Polish Arabic Hebrew Georgian Tamil Japanese (Chinese) Mandarin Armenian Farsi Tagalog Twi English German Hindi/Urdu Panjabi French Italian Portuguese Spanish Polish Arabic Hebrew Hungarian Japanese Korean Cantonese Mandarin Kutchi Marathi Swahili Tagalog

6 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 6 2/3 4 11 10 3 8 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada

69

MCMASTER CAMPUS PROFICIENCY LEVEL

LANGUAGE CLASS

LANGUAGE FAMILY

LANGUAGE

ITA 100

1 (total: 12) 2 (total: 12)

Germanic Germanic

English English German French Italian Spanish SerboCroatian ASL Farsi English Greek French Italian Spanish SerboCroatian Cantonese Mandarin Afrikaans Zulu English German Bengali French Italian Spanish Polish

Romance

Slavic Other 3 (total: 11)

Germanic Hellenic Romance

Slavic Sino-Tibetan Other 4 (total: 6)

Germanic Indic Romance

Slavic

NUMBER OF SPEAKERS 12 12 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 11 1 7 7 2 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 5 4 6 2

Table 2-7 McMaster Campus

Besides providing evidence of multilingualism in Canadian university settings, Salvato’s (2011, 2015) work is an example of multimodality introduced to Italian language classes in Canada. Students in her study were given the opportunity to interpret a selection of Italian gestures and offer insights into how they, as speakers of different languages, understand concepts and meanings that pertain to the Italian nonverbal code of communication. This exercise used target gestures in combination with, or

Chapter Two

70

in substitution for, target speech, which made it possible for Italian students to experience a more multimodal approach to Italian language teaching and learning. Table 2-8 reports about the students7 who, across university campus, proficiency level, and language class, attributed more than one interpretation to the gestures of this study, in particular to G2 (i.e., “good food”), G4 (i.e., “money”), and G5 (i.e., “frustration”). Regardless of the participants’ proficiency level or type of language background, the gestures triggered different interpretations. Multiple interpretations suggest that the students made some effort to find the words to describe the Italian gestures in the study. Some students reproduced the direct speech that, in their opinion, accompanies the performance of the gestures (e.g., “G5 what’s wrong with you”). Other students made use of English colloquial expressions (e.g., “c’mon”) or of regional Italian (e.g., regional It. “non ni scoccia!,” It. “non mi scocciare,” Engl. “don’t bother me”). Use of verbal language in combination with gestures suggests that the students are aware of a relationship between verbal and nonverbal language, and they try to create a context of occurrence of the Italian gestures. On the other hand, some students did not seem to be sure of their interpretation and included a question mark in their verbal description (e.g., “G3 very thin? Excellent?”): Campus

St. George 100 Toronto

Number of languages spoken (other than Italian) One

Student and languages spoken

Gesture and interpretation (verbatim)

None

None

Two

Student T57 (English [native], French) Student T80 (English, French)

G4 (does this refer to money? Or – time is being wasted)

Student T73 (Portuguese [native], Spanish, English)

G3 (very thin? Excellent?)

Three

G2 (funny, dimples/pointing them out, tastes good) G4 (money, pay up, feel this [textures])

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada Four or more

St. George 101 Toronto

One

Two

Three

St. George 152 Toronto

Four or more One

71

Student T76 (Russian [native], English, Ukrainian, Spanish) None

G4 (money, or “you’re talking rubbish” when speaking to someone)

Student T157 (English [native], French) Student T129 (English [native], French) Student T138 (English, French) Student T117 (English [native], Swedish, Irish) Student T142 (English [native], Spanish, French) None Student S8 (English)

G2 (cute, young, chubby, adorable, love, good taste, good food, happy mood, maybe flirtacious) G5 (what are you doing? Disappointed?)

None

G4 (show me the money; could also be, do you want to have sex, voi sborrare con me!?) G2 (tasty/happy)

G2 (delicious, smile) G5 (blessing, what have you done? Managia!)

None G2 (Il gesto che describe un cibo che e buono. Spesso usato da bambini piccoli) G3 (suggerisce perfezione quando qualcuno spiega qualcosa. Come se fusse “tulto in Fila”) G5 (un gesto di escalamazione quando qualcuno richiede qualcosa, per pregnare a qualcuno puo’ essere usato quando uno parla a un gruppo di genie)

Chapter Two

72

Student S3 (English) Two

Mississauga 100 Toronto

Student S2 (English, French) Student S7 (English, French)

Three Four or more One

None None Student M97

Two

Student M19 (English, French) Student M15 (Romanian, English, French) Student M58 (Punjabi, English, German) Student M90 (English, French, German) Student M27 (English [native], Japanese, French) Student M70 (Kutchi [Indian], Portuguese, English, Swahili)

Three

Four or more

G5 (it means “c’mon give me a break!” or “non, ni scoccia!” “Dxxxi”) G4 (pay up)

G2 (uno scherzo, una bugia) G5 (quando sei arrabiato/a e chiedi una spiegazione di perche una cosa e successa) None None G5 (please or “what’s wrong with you”) G4 (symbol for money or substance) G5 (Prego! Or a gesture that shows despair [you get on my nerves because you don’t understand]) G5 (a gesture that could indicate frustration or maybe asking for something. Praying) G4 (money or texture)

G4 (touch or expensive)

G1 (trying to emphasize group work, collaboration or the necessity to get together and solve problems as a whole)

Gestures and the Pedagogy of Second Languages in Canada McMaster 100 Hamilton

73

One

Student 27 (English)

G4 (usually suggests money or thrift)

Two

Student 25 (English, French)

G5 (used to exaggerate when you’re saying something like: “How would you know that, you can’t know anything” or “what are you doing?”) G2 (rompa mio testa!) G5 (manage! Explaining to children) None None

Three Four or more

Student 4 (English, Spanish) None None

Table 2-8 Canadian learners’ interpretations of six Italian gestures

2.3. Conclusion This chapter overviews the contributions that gesture has made to the field of SLA and second language pedagogy in the last few decades. Gesture is a nonverbal means of communication, a means of language learning and teaching, and a means that promotes multimodality (Müller, Ladewig, Cienki, Fricke, Bressem, McNeill, and Tessendorf, 2013, 2014; Seyfeddinipur and Gullberg, 2014). All these aspects are of relevance in modern society, where language use and acquisition take place in multilingual and multimodal contexts. This chapter has paid particular attention to the multilingual and multicultural educational settings of Ontario in Canada, where gesture interpretation and production can vary in accordance with the language under examination and the background languages of the speakers considered. As we have reviewed in this chapter, gestures play important and positive roles, from facilitating comprehension to helping production of language. Gestures promote interaction and understanding among interlocutors, whether we consider the classroom setting or any other contexts, or whether the participants are native or non-native speakers of a language. Gestures also reveal insights into the language acquisition process. People are often able to develop verbal fluency but they may remain nonverbally incompetent in a target language. They may construct and organize meanings according to the parameters that define nonverbal behavior in their native language rather than developing knowledge of parameters belonging to the language they are learning.

74

Chapter Two

For all of these reasons, research in SLA and multilingualism is paying closer attention to gesture and other nonverbal aspects of communication in order to provide more insights into the experience of learning new or additional languages. When combinations of languages are involved in the examination of gesture occurrences, the studies become more complex but scholars and educators can gain a better understanding of multilingualism in society. The focus of investigation is shifted away from the traditional emphasis on verbal language, and a greater number of studies investigate the relationship between speech and nonverbal aspects of communication. It is a fact that while interacting, people accompany their speech with movements of their body; they use their hands; they assume facial expressions; etc. This also happens during the process of learning abilities in a new language. Developing skills of different kinds in a target language leads to multicompetence, a concept that is being appreciated in the latest linguistic and educational studies (cf. Cook, 1992, 1995, 2007). Besides the traditional four skills (i.e., listening, reading, writing, speaking), multicompetence includes knowledge that manifests itself in different forms such as the visual and kinetic components offered by gestures. Although SLA research has made progress towards integrating gestures into the examination of language development, use, and comprehension, the biggest challenge that scholars face today is to transfer that knowledge to language pedagogy (e.g., McCafferty and Stam, 2008). Research findings urge educators to integrate gestures into the syllabus of language classes. This recommendation is particularly significant for those languages, such as Italian, that are typically classified as gesture-rich languages (Kendon, 2004). Language education needs to pay more attention to the contribution that gestures can make to the teaching and learning of second languages. As discussed in this chapter, gestures and nonverbal skills can, for example, help teachers assess learners’ interlanguage more thoroughly. Furthermore, multilingualism and multimodality are a growing reality in contemporary society. Both are bound to affect students’ attitude and learning trajectories in class. It is not possible for educators and policy makers to ignore the varied linguistic and multimodal background of today’s student population. Gestures seem to indicate a route for language pedagogy to implement multimodal practices in language education while complementing traditional methods and techniques. These are important suggestions for language pedagogy in today’s Canada, where the latest census data show that the country is increasingly multicultural and multilingual.

CHAPTER THREE GESTURES IN THE PEDAGOGY OF ITALIAN AS A SECOND LANGUAGE IN CANADA

3.1. Introduction This chapter focuses on the pedagogy of Italian in Canada. Italian in Canada is typically studied after learning other languages. Many Canadian students of Italian approach this language with knowledge of at least two languages, that is, their mother tongue and another language (cf. Faculty of Arts and Science, 2005). More appropriately, Italian in Canada is a third language (L3) (see literature on third language acquisition, such as Cenoz, Hufeisen, and Jessner, 2001). This chapter begins with an overview of some official documents and reference books that grant a position to gestures in the pedagogy of Italian, whether we consider the European Community or North America. The chapter continues with an examination of the role of gestures in Italian textbook writing. Particular attention is paid to a selection of publications that have been used in Canada in the last few decades. The chapter then offers some directions towards integrating gestures into Italian language classes outside Italy. The chapter ends with the presentation of three research studies in which Italian gestures formed part of the learning experience of Italian classes in Canada.

3.2. Gestures in official documents8 One of the most influential documents that has directed language planning in the last decade is known as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (2001). This document originates from the rich diversity of languages and cultures present in Europe and the interest in protecting such heritage while promoting interaction among people of different mother tongues. The general principle at the base of the Common European Framework (2001:43) aspires to make learners become “plurilingual and develop interculturality.” Learners are not expected to lose their mother tongue and

76

Chapter Three

culture but to acquire a richer and more complex linguistic and cultural preparation, in order to be able to function appropriately in cross-cultural situations. From a pedagogical point of view, the Common European Framework (2001) provides a model to describe and scale language use, kinds of knowledge, and the skills that learners are expected to develop in a language different from their own. The document is supposed to stimulate reflection on objectives and methods, and create a common basis for curriculum improvement. One of the results brought about by the implementation of the Common European Framework (2001) is revealed in certifications of language competence. As Serragiotto (2005) explains, the Common European Framework (2001) has made certifications uniform across languages because the same parameters and evaluation measurements are applied to all European languages. The Common European Framework (2001) pays particular attention to the definition of learners’ communicative competence, from linguistic to sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence. It maintains that learners need all three types of competence to carry out interaction, production, comprehension, and mediation in a language. It is interesting to note that in its general descriptors concerning interaction, the Common European Framework (2001:28) ranks as high competence (i.e., C2 level) the ability of speakers to not only use verbal language well but also nonverbal and intonational cues: can interact with ease and skill, picking up and using non-verbal and intonational cues apparently effortlessly. Can interweave his/her contribution into the joint discourse with fully natural turn taking, referencing, allusion making, etc.

On the one hand, the Common European Framework (2001) describes the general competences that language users and learners need in communication. Among these, it lists declarative knowledge (i.e., savoir); sociocultural knowledge; intercultural awareness; skills and know-how (i.e., savoir-faire); existential competence (i.e., savoir-être); and ability to learn (i.e., savoir-apprendre). On the other hand, the document considers specific language-related communicative competence, which includes linguistic competence with its lexical, grammatical, semantic, phonological, and orthographic components; sociolinguistic competence, that is, knowledge and skills required to deal with the social dimension of language use (e.g., register); and pragmatic competence, that is, knowledge that enables people to organize discourse (e.g., turn-taking conventions), perform communicative functions (e.g., making a

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

77

suggestion), and sequence messages according to interactional schemata (e.g., agreeing vs. disagreeing). In order to organize its guidelines for educators and language policy makers to follow, the Common European Framework (2001) focuses on four main domains, and their situations, events, people, objects, operations, and texts involved. The domains are the personal, the public, the occupational, and the educational. Within each domain, the learner is expected to carry out tasks and to achieve specific purposes. In production activities, particularly in speaking, the learner is likely to plan, compensate, monitor, and repair his or her use of the target language. Under compensating, the Common European Framework (2001:64) mentions use of nonverbal language, specifically gestures, for one of the lower levels of proficiency (i.e., A2): “can use an inadequate word from his/her repertoire and use gesture to clarify what he/she wants to say. Can identify what he/she means by pointing to it (e.g., ‘I’d like this, please’).” In discussing the aspects involved in interaction (e.g., planning, execution, evaluation, repair), the Common European Framework (2001:88–89) dedicates a section to nonverbal communication and states that it consists of: pointing, e.g., by finger, hand, glance, nod. These actions are used with deictics for the identification of objects, persons, etc., such as ‘Can I have that one? No, no that one, that one’. demonstration, accompanying deictics and simple present verbs and proverbs, such as, ‘I take this and fix it here, like this, now you do the same!’ clearly observable actions, which can be assumed as known in narrative, comment, orders, etc., such as ‘Don’t do that!’, ‘Well done there!’, ‘Oh no, he’s dropped it!’.

It is interesting to note that “In all these cases, the utterance is uninterpretable unless the action is perceived” (Common European Framework, 2001:89). Nonverbal communication is also comprised of paralinguistics. Besides extra-linguistic speech-sounds (e.g., “sh” for requesting silence) and prosodic qualities (e.g., pitch), the Common European Framework (2001:89) describes paralinguistics as including the following nonverbal components: Body language. Paralinguistic body language differs from practical actions accompanied by language in that it carries conventionalized meanings, which may well differ from one culture to another. For example, the following are used in many European countries: gesture (e.g. shaken fist for ‘protest’);

Chapter Three

78

facial expression (e.g. smile or scowl); posture (e.g. slump for ‘despair’ or sitting forward for ‘keen interest’); eye contact (e.g. a conspiratorial wink or a disbelieving stare); body contact (e.g. kiss or handshake); proxemics (e.g. standing close or aloof).

The Common European Framework (2001) then states that the objectives of language learning and teaching are to be defined on the basis of the needs of learners and of society, on the tasks and activities in which learners are involved, the competences and strategies that they want to build up. For example, the strategies used in accomplishing a task may vary according to the language level taken into account. When language proficiency is low, strategies may be of the nonverbal type: Savoir-être (existential competence) demonstrating openness, conviviality, and good will (e.g. by use of gestures, mime, proxemics) may, in the case of a language in which the individual has poorly mastered the linguistic component, make up for this deficiency in the course of interaction with a native speaker, whereas in a language he or she knows better, this same individual may adopt a more distant or reserved attitude. The task may also be redefined, the linguistic message reshaped or redistributed, according to the resources available for expression or the individual’s perception of these resources (Common European Framework, 2001:133–34).

The Common European Framework (2001) promotes multidimensionality and modularity in the linguistic curriculum. This is because it recognizes the concept of partial knowledge however well one knows a language. The document claims that there is never equal mastery of the different components of a language. Moreover, it advocates that prior, current, and future linguistic and cultural preparation should find multiple uses, across languages and skills, and are helpful for different purposes. The characteristics of plurality and modularity of linguistic knowledge should also direct assessment practices. In sum, the Common European Framework (2001:176) states that users of this document may consider: x x

x

whether the learners concerned already have some experience of linguistic and cultural plurality, and the nature of this experience; whether learners are already able, even if at a very basic level, to function in several linguistic and/or cultural communities, and how this competence is distributed and differentiated according to the contexts of language use and activities; what experience of linguistic and cultural diversity learners may have at the time of their learning (for example parallel to and outside their attendance at a learning institution);

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada x x

x

x x x

x x

79

how this experience might be built on in the learning process; what types of objectives appear best suited to learners at a particular point in the development of a plurilingual and pluricultural competence, taking account of their characteristics, expectations, interests, plans and needs as well as their previous learning path and their existing resources; how to encourage, for the learners concerned, the decompartmentalization and establishment of an effective relationship between the different components of plurilingual and pluricultural competence in the process of being developed; in particular, how to focus attention on and draw on the learners’ existing transferable and transversal knowledge and skills; which partial competences (of what kind and for what purposes) might enrich, complexify and differentiate learners’ existing competences; how to fit learning concerned with a particular language or culture coherently into an overall curriculum in which the experience of several languages and several cultures is developed; what options or what forms of differentiation in curriculum scenarios exist for managing the development of a diversified competence for particular learners; what economies of scale can be envisaged and achieved, if appropriate; what forms of organization of learning (a modular approach, for example) are likely to favour management of the learning path in the case of the learners in question; what approach to evaluation or assessment will make it possible to take account of and accord proper recognition to the partial competences and the diversified plurilingual and pluricultural competence of learners.

The systematic reference to nonverbal language and to competences of different kinds in the Common European Framework (2001) contrasts with Livello Soglia (Engl. “The Threshold Level”) (Galli de’ Paratesi, 1981), which formerly attempted a definition of the basic skills necessary for learners of Italian to conduct interaction in this language. Livello Soglia (1981) did not provide for a comprehensive account of the nonverbal components that participate in oral communication. In developing the ability to understand target speech, Livello Soglia (1981:66) would recognize the role of extralinguistic factors, such as gestures or facial expressions, but it would state that these account for a general, not analytical, understanding of speech: “per comprensione del parlato è bene perciò chiarire che non si può intendere una comprensione analitica, ma generale e basata anche su fattori extralinguistici.” Among other skills, the document included the metalinguistic ability that enables

80

Chapter Three

learners to ask for repetitions, for a slower pace of talk, and for paraphrase. Yet it would focus much less on the impact of nonverbal behavior in oral communication: padroneggiare il livello metalinguistico della comunicazione quanto basta per chiedere agli interlocutori di ripetere quello che hanno detto, di parlare più lentamente o più chiaramente, di parafrasare, ecc., per riempire, quando necessario, con lo sfruttamento del livello metalinguistico, le lacune della comprensione o della conoscenza (Livello Soglia, 1981:67–68).

In general, foreign language education in North America is organized according to the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (1999). This document was formulated by the American organizations that collaborated on the project known as ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines—Speaking (Breiner-Sanders, Lowe, Miles, and Swender, 2000). The Standards cover five areas of interest: communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities. Like the Common European Framework (2001), the Standards (1999) put an emphasis on students’ ability to participate in oral communication. Interaction may take various forms, from face-to-face to written exchanges. By practicing communication in another language, the Standards (1999) maintain, learners can gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures. The ultimate objective of the Standards (1999) is to create multilingual communities and favor communication among speakers of different languages in culturally appropriate ways. It is interesting to note that in the section dedicated to the Italian language, the Standards (1999) underline the fact that oral interaction in this language conveys information also through body language, facial, and hand gestures. The Standards (1999) recognize the importance of nonverbal behavior in Italian oral communication and expect learners to become familiar with it. The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines—Speaking (Breiner-Sanders, Lowe, Miles, and Swender, 2000) are a revised version of 1986’s publication by the same name. These guidelines offer a measurement of learners’ functional competence, that is, their ability to perform different linguistic tasks. The ACTFL Guidelines describe speaking proficiency levels by providing information about what learners can do and how far they are from the level above their own. The ACTFL Guidelines classify learners as superior speakers, advanced-high speakers, advanced-mid speakers, advanced-low speakers, intermediate-high speakers, intermediatemid speakers, intermediate-low speakers, novice-high speakers, novicemid speakers, and novice-low speakers. While reading the characteristics for each type, one finds little or no information about the nonverbal

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

81

components of interaction. For superior speakers, the ACTFL Guidelines say that they command interactional and discourse strategies, such as turntaking, as well as intonation features, such as pitch stress. For advancedmid speakers, ACTFL Guidelines state that they use communication strategies, but no mention is made of what type, or whether these are verbal or nonverbal strategies. For low proficient learners, such as novicemid speakers, the ACTFL Guidelines say that “they pause frequently as they search for simple vocabulary or […] recycle their own or the interlocutor’s words” (Breiner-Sanders, Lowe, Miles, and Swender, 2000:15). No account of nonverbal language skills is given. The ACTFL Guidelines also describe the following levels of proficiency and their typical strategies, but none of the descriptions include a reference to nonverbal means of communication or a specification of whether strategies such as hesitation, reformulations, searches, etc. can occur through the performance of gestures or other nonverbal means: Superior speakers command interactive and discourse strategies; Advanced-High speakers use paraphrasing, circumlocution, illustration; Advanced-Mid speakers use circumlocution, generic vocabulary, rephrasing; Advanced-Low speakers use rephrasing, circumlocution, false cognates, literal translations; Intermediate-High speakers use code-switching, false cognates, literal translations; Intermediate-Mid speakers use pauses, reformulations, self-corrections; Intermediate-Low speakers use hesitancy, inaccuracies, pauses, ineffective reformulations, and self-corrections; Novice-High speakers use repetitions, rephrasing, learned phrases and recombination of these; Novice-Mid speakers use memorized phrases, repetitions, words from L1, silence; Novice-Low speakers use two or three words at a time, pause frequently, search simple vocabulary, recycle their or the interlocutors’ words.

In the Ontario school curriculum, the Canadian Ministry of Education (2006) formulated the guidelines for teaching “language” in grades 1 to 8. In this document, we read that one of the areas of learning in which students need to become literate is oral communication. Since students in Ontario typically come from a variety of language backgrounds, the curriculum states that an important step towards developing oral communication is to teach strategies and resources that account for the diversity of the student population. Equally important is to teach the norms

82

Chapter Three

and conventions that make oral communication different across cultures (cf. Canadian Ministry of Education, 2006). For each grade, the Ontario curriculum describes overall and specific expectations. In the area of oral communication, the curriculum indicates three categories under specific expectations: listening to understand; speaking to communicate; and reflecting on oral communication skills and strategies. Speaking to communicate includes reference to nonverbal cues. For example, by the end of grade 1, students are expected to be able to recognize and use appropriately some facial expressions, gestures, and eye contact. Moreover, they are expected to develop an appreciation of nonverbal cues “with sensitivity towards cultural differences, to help convey their meaning” (Canadian Ministry of Education, 2006:38). The remaining part of this section considers a few dictionaries and collections of Italian gestures, which, we believe, can also offer guidelines to language pedagogy. In the preface to his collection, Munari (1994) sets out the purpose of his work by saying that “a dictionary of Italian gestures is an enjoyable and handy tool, especially if we consider that the Italians are known all over the world for the way they have of expressing themselves with gestures as well as with words.” Munari (1994) presents forty-nine typical Italian gestures for the use of the foreigner. Besides pictures, the author includes a typical verbal expression that accompanies the gestures and a description of the bodily parts involved in the performance of the gestures. The verbal information is given in Italian, English, French, German, and Japanese. The pictures show variation of gesture use according to age groups (i.e., gestures used with children instead of adults). Diadori (1990) selects 100 Italian gestures of the emblematic type and classifies them into seven categories: social conventions, emotion or feelings, actions, questions and answers, opinions, descriptions, and insults. For each gesture, the author provides a standardized picture, a brief description of the bodily parts involved, the register, and a few verbal definitions. This selection meets the following criteria. Emblematic gestures are conventional signs within the Italian culture regardless of regional differences; they are symbolic, that is, codified within the Italian culture; they are explicit as they carry a specific meaning; they are schematic as they portray just one of the aspects that forms part of a concept or of an object entailed in the gesture itself; and they are currently used in Italy. Diadori (1990) classifies the 100 gestures in a way to combine them with the linguistic categories described in Livello Soglia (1981). This fact is meant to warrant practical applications of gesture studies within language classes.

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

83

A different objective inspired Morris, Collett, Marsh, and O’Shaughnessy (1979) to study Italian gestures. The authors offer an attempt to localize the most common gestures in the area of Western and Southern Europe. In forty different locations, the authors chose thirty male adults and asked them a large number of questions. When the authors were in Italy, they described the peculiarity of this geographical area by saying that “Italy was particularly favoured because it included the two separate land masses of Sicily and Sardinia, and because we already knew that significant differences in the gestural repertoire existed between the northern mainland of Italy and the southern zone” (Morris et al. 1979:xv). The authors restricted their scope of analysis to “illustrators” and to “emblems.” Among the emblems, they chose the symbolic rather than the mimic ones. As Morris et al. (1979:xvii) explain, “they (the symbolic) have the most interesting histories and the most clear-cut regional restrictions […] a symbolic gesture involves a process of abstraction requiring the acceptance of a local convention, and it is this that makes such gestures particularly useful for the preparation of distribution maps.” Two other criteria apply to Morris et al.’s (1979:xix) study: Each gesture had to be difficult to interpret, merely from its form. By picking such a gesture, we could be sure that unless it was genuinely employed locally, the informant would not be able to identify it. Each gesture had to be well known somewhere in our study-area and comparatively unknown elsewhere in the area.

Morris et al. (1979) selected gestures that are representative of a wide variety of meanings and that are popular in the areas of their investigation. A typical chapter in their collection contains a description of a gesture; its origin; pictures of the gesture; distribution of the gesture in Europe within a map that shows exact locations; and the meanings attributed to each gesture according to a ranking that classifies them as relatively common, relatively rare, or absent. In their study, Morris et al. (1979) were able to make the following observations. Prejudice barriers can make a gesture more typical in one region than in another. Barriers may develop because a gesture is linked to a verbal expression that is not present in a different place. Ideological and religious beliefs can also be a reason for barriers between cultures. Geographical aspects of a territory can create a natural impediment to the spread of a gesture. Taboos or marked cultural aspects can equally limit gesture spread. Gestures can undergo replacements due to fashion trends. Some gestures are restricted to certain social classes. Others have an obscure origin. Others need to be seen in a combination of gestures to

84

Chapter Three

acquire meaning. Gestures tend to be conservative not only in form, but also in meanings and even, in some cases, in distribution. There are illegal gestures in some European zones. For example, the so-called “forearm jerk” gesture is illegal in Malta. Among the gestures that convey multimessages, Morris et al. (1979) propose the example of “bad brain or crazy or stupid” vs. “good brain or intelligent or clever,” which in both cases is performed as a “temple-screw” gesture. Finally, some gestures are easily understood across cultures because they mime the action that they signify (e.g., the gesture used for “telephone”). With the intent of finding whether gestures are culturally defined, Efron (1972) compares the typical gestures of Eastern Jews with those of Southern Italians in the city of New York in the 1940s. The author discusses tendencies in gestural behavior in the two groups and shows the main differences. Efron (1972) distinguishes and measures three aspects of hand and head movements: the spatio-temporal one (i.e., radius, form, plane, bodily parts, and tempo); the inter-locutional one (i.e., familiarity with the physical person, simultaneous gestures, conversational grouping, and gestures with objects); and the linguistic one (i.e., logical-discursive, objective, and emblematic). In the section called “illustrations,” Efron (1972) includes sketches and drawings of patterns of movements, the radius of arm movements, the circular or complex lines that follow the direction of the movements, and pictures of emblematic gestures. Efron’s (1972) analysis suggests that the assimilated Eastern Jews and the assimilated Southern Italians in New York appear to differ greatly from their respective traditional group, and that they resemble each other. This makes assimilation a much stronger factor than culture of origin in gestural behavior. De Jorio’s (1979) book is dedicated to the gestures of the Neapolitan people in particular. Although this work was completed in the early 19th century, Kendon (2000b) remarks that de Jorio’s study represents one of the first attempts to collect gesture types in accordance with criteria that are still worthy of our attention. De Jorio (1979:v) describes gestures by ordinary people in Naples and recognizes their similarity with those used by their ancestors: “Semplice e naturale fu la circostanza, che da alcuni anni ci fece concepire l’idea di occuparci ad illustrare la sempre e comunemente decantata mimica de’ Napoletani, non che la sua perfetta rassomiglianza all’antica.” De Jorio (1979) views gestures as a communicative code analogous to speech. Yet the author organizes his collection in a different way from a dictionary of words. Before anything else, he considers the meanings of gestures. For example, under the section entitled Amore (Engl. “love”),

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

85

nine different meanings are described. The modernity of de Jorio’s work lies in its complementary indexes of themes, meanings, and gesture forms. As Kendon (2000b:lix) comments, de Jorio understood that a gesture dictionary cannot have the characteristics of a lexicon of words: Perhaps it would be better if we were to think of gestures rather as we think of plants when we go to construct a flora. According to this idea gestures would be organized into families according to their own characteristics and then indexes complementary to one another would be supplied, so that we could look up gestures from many different points of view.

A gesture dictionary cannot follow an alphabetical order like a dictionary of words. The relationship between form and meaning is often based on a process of imitation, not on one of convention, as in the case of words. Moreover, the meaning of gestures depends on the accompanying facial expressions and on other bodily activity. Gestural meanings are also related to what is being said and to the context of interaction. De Jorio (1979) includes a discussion from which we can see that gestures and speech are parallel modes of expressions. Like words, gestures can convey the grammatical meanings of “person,” “number,” and “gender,” as well as that of “verb tenses,” “comparative,” “superlative,” and “diminutive.” Gestures still offer unique possibilities. For example, de Jorio (1979) attributes the function of “performatives” to some gestures used in the city of Naples. Performative gestures serve to make promises, and to express blessings and wishes, without the need to use words: the gestures de Jorio describes not only serve in relation to speech as a dramatizing device, as a device to mark the character of a speech act, as a means of pronoun disambiguation but also […] certain gestures played a role in everyday life as performatives. In Neapolitan culture, […] gesture played an important role as a means by which promises were made, blessings accomplished, wishes expressed, contracts agreed to (Kendon, 2000b:xcviii).

De Jorio’s (1979) book closes with illustrations of fifteen tables of daily situations in which Neapolitans use gestures. For some of them a brief verbal description in Italian is provided.

3.3. Gestures in language textbooks of Italian Having introduced the contents of official documents and dictionaries that could be used to integrate gestures into language classes, we will now

Chapter Three

86

inquire whether Italian language textbooks take these directions into consideration. One recent analysis of Italian textbooks used in Canada suggests otherwise. Salvato (2007) selected twenty-one publications and examined the way their visual material incorporates gestures in the presentation of linguistic and cultural contents. The author considered the following criteria of analysis: x x x x x x

different levels of proficiency (beginners, intermediate, and advanced); different periods, from the early 80s to the early 2000s; presence of pictures, especially of people interacting with other people; visual representation of gestures; types of gestures portrayed; explanation of meanings and salience of gestures in communication.

In the first place, year of publication was revealed to make a difference across the textbooks selected (Salvato, 2007). The earlier publications (e.g., Frassica and Carrara, 1981; Merlonghi, Merlonghi, and Tursi, 1982) typically present fewer pictures than the later ones. They include drawings and sketches, mainly of the black-and-white type. Photos are less common. Besides showing landscapes and places of different kinds (i.e., a town square, a shopping centre, a monument), the earlier textbooks do not seem to consider the relevance of pictures of people interacting with other people. They often portray people from the rear, or at a distance that makes it impossible for the reader to see what body language they are using. Pictures in earlier publications show actions, behavior, and situations that are not only typically Italian but can be found in any community across the world. An example is the picture of a man stretching his hand towards a woman to offer her some flowers. In another picture, a man is shown selling fish and weighing it on the scales. Another picture depicts students in a classroom: some are looking at the teacher, others are taking notes. Because the earlier textbooks do not offer any type of insight into the cultural significance of these pictures, students can only rely on their personal interpretation or, if given, on the information that the teacher provides to them. The teacher may be the only referent to understand the characteristics of visual material in the textbooks. Not even a photo of the Italian director Lina Wertmüller in Merlonghi, Merlonghi, and Tursi (1982), who, while talking to another person, makes the gesture known as

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

87

mano a borsa (i.e., “pursed hand,” cf. Morris et al. 1979), is accompanied by information about the meanings and uses of this common Italian emblematic gesture. Starting from the 1990s, publications (e.g., Cicogna, 1992; Danesi, 1997; Lettieri and Maiguashca, 1997; Musumeci, 1990) begin to offer a different type of visual material (Salvato, 2007). Color and black-andwhite pictures serve as a point of departure for class activities. They are not only a background element, nor are they there just for aesthetic purposes. Pictures create an opportunity for the class to discuss contents and do tasks related to them. A variety of visual material depicts actions, gestures, and typical interactional scenes in the target language community. Photos of famous Italian people are shown to perform gestures in their specific profession. An example is Sara Simeoni who, in winning a competition, raises her arms as a sign of victory. Another example is the reproduction of famous Italian paintings where bodily parts are shown (e.g., The Creation of Mankind by Michelangelo). Pictures in 1990s publications also portray everyday activities in Italy. For example, it is common to find photos that show Italians preparing and drinking coffee in a family kitchen. The type of coffee and the gesture of picking up the Italian coffee cup add cultural elements to those pictures. Among customs and common scenes of everyday life in Italy, there are greeting practices reproduced either as sketches or as photos (Salvato, 2007). Formal and informal greetings are presented. Shaking hands is shown as an example of a formal way of greeting somebody. Kissing somebody on both cheeks is introduced as an informal greeting in Italy. In Branciforte and Grassi (1998), a vignette shows two friends meeting at the town square and kissing each other on both cheeks. After greeting, they sit down on the steps of a fountain and start to talk. This sequence of pictures occurs at the point when students are learning reflexive verbs (e.g., incontrarsi, baciarsi, parlarsi, Engl. “to meet with another person, to kiss each other, to talk to one another”). Students are asked to describe what they see in the vignette and to use the appropriate reflexive verbs. In this instance, it is very important that students are made aware of the fact that in Italy greeting friends often involves kissing one another on the cheeks more than shaking hands or hugging. The 1990s textbooks reproduce general body language such as a pointing gesture to indicate somebody or something; facial expressions that suggest surprise, disgust, etc.; the hands held on the head to convey the meaning of pain; and the palm of the hands facing up to indicate that the speaker is engaged in face-to-face interactions (Salvato, 2007). Although this type of visuals does not define Italian nonverbal language

88

Chapter Three

only, it still represents some advance in granting a role to visual support in language textbooks compared to earlier textbooks. It enriches the opportunities for language learners to observe and discuss nonverbal contents along with the verbal ones. Publications in the early 2000s (e.g., Federici and Riga, 2003; Lazzarino, Peccianti, Aski, and Dini, 2004; Speroni, Golino, and Caiti, 2002) put more emphasis on visuals in the presentation of linguistic and cultural contents (Salvato, 2007). Textbooks are equipped with rich visual material: colorful photos, drawings, and sketches. General nonverbal behavior emerges mainly in the form of pointing fingers, smiling and angered faces, or waving or shaking of hands. When showing people interacting with other people, the most common gestures are the pointing finger and the hand stretched towards the interlocutor. The former typically serves to indicate something or someone; the latter suggests that the speaker is engaged in a speaking turn, or that he or she is explaining things or inviting the interlocutor to do something. The novelty of the textbooks published in the early 2000s lies in their addition of videos as accompanying material. The videos show short dialogues among Italians who are engaged in everyday conversations in different contexts (e.g., at the café, in the family kitchen, etc.). Follow-up activities available online allow students to put their understanding of communicative exchanges to the test. In watching native speakers interact in settings that resemble real life situations, students can observe the nonverbal behavior involved in those exchanges. Actual understanding, however, can be promoted through an organized analysis of the nonverbal behavior incorporated with the videos. Systematic activities aimed at examining gestures and other nonverbal means of communication in the videos are unfortunately missing in these publications (Salvato, 2007). Salvato’s (2007) study suggests that, in general, the Italian textbooks she examines provide little or no information about the significance of specific nonverbal aspects that pertain to Italian communication. As the years of publication unfold, some typical Italian gestures start to appear here and there, but hardly any formal explanation and description accompany them. Textbooks leave to the teacher the decision to discuss the relevance of such content. The only publication that Salvato (2007) found to deal with the Italian gestures in explicit ways is Balì and Ziglio (2003). The textbook provides drawings of Italian emblematic gestures and the equivalent verbal explanation, sometimes in idiomatic form. Balì and Ziglio (2003) is a textbook for intermediate and advanced students and is produced and published in Italy. Salvato (2007) notes that the separate section that introduces Italian gestures is called Qualcosa in più (Engl.

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

89

“Something more”), which suggests that the book aims to integrate a somewhat traditional concept of language teaching with contents that are usually little represented in language textbooks. In sum, Italian textbook writing in North America has changed over the last few decades. Yet the publications in Salvato (2007) make little effort to introduce typical gestures and other nonverbal behavior through visuals that adequately represent types, uses, and meanings. Not enough attention is paid to the relationship between gestures and speech in oral communication. In Salvato’s (2007) opinion, this fact limits the learning experience of students of Italian, especially of those who live far away from Italy and are influenced by stereotypes and distorted views of gestures in Italian interactions. The integration of the nonverbal code of communication into language textbooks would respond to the recommendations made by much literature in SLA and in gesture studies, which urge the need to make language education a more multimodal experience. The publications in Salvato (2007) still focus on the verbal components of the Italian language. Visual material mainly functions so as to clarify verbal contents rather than complement or add cultural significance to them. This fact leaves to the teacher the decision to integrate missing information and to discuss the socio-cultural value of nonverbal language, perhaps through additional activities and material. Today’s challenge for textbook writing therefore lies in finding an approach that systematically organizes target gestures and nonverbal behavior, also in combination with target verbal language. Attention needs to be paid to a number of aspects that regulate variation of gesture uses, such as register, contexts, and age groups. Basic notions may be provided before more complex descriptions of nonverbal behavior. For example, the analysis of a single gesture may precede the analysis of how facial expressions can change depending on what gesture is performed or on the meaning that the same gesture assumes in different interactional contexts. Similarly, students with lower levels of proficiency may be introduced to simple notions first (e.g., formal vs. informal gestures in greeting practices) and later on be introduced to more complex descriptions of nonverbal aspects of communication (e.g., socio-cultural implications of gesture uses).

3.4. Gestures in Italian language classes When, while watching a movie that represents Italians, we turn the volume down, gestures and general body language become more obviously visible and meaningful in identifying those characters as Italian

90

Chapter Three

speakers. Their posture, facial expressions, gaze, distance from the interlocutors, carriage, along with their rhythmical gestures such as beats, and culturally specific gestures such as emblems, all define the cultural, social, and personal identity of those people. Teachers who are native speakers of Italian are bound to transport Italian cultural, social, and personal features to their classes. The repeated use of those elements in class are likely to become recognizable to students. Teachers’ nonverbal behavior provides meaningful information, both linguistically and culturally, about the language being studied. Teachers’ gestures contribute to students’ familiarity with the nonverbal behavior that typically defines the target speech community. As Nardotto Peltier and McCafferty (2010:336) claim, “studying in a FL classroom where the teacher presents herself or himself as Italian allows the student to experience the languaculture through the embodied presence of the teacher: how she or he talks, looks, smells, dresses, moves, gestures and so on.” Following Nardotto Peltier and McCafferty’s (2010) argument, we formulated a repertoire of gestures that Italian teachers typically use in class. The repertoire offers an example of how gestures convey cultural significance in an Italian language class as they conceptualize meanings and functions that are easily recognizable by native speakers of Italian. The gestures accomplish pedagogical and cultural functions at the same time. For each gesture, we provide a description of the bodily parts involved, an accompanying verbal expression, and an explanation of the functions that the gestures accomplish. The gestures can be observed at any level of proficiency in Italian. Gesture 1: Fate piano… (Engl. “Quiet down”) Description: palms of both hands facing down and moving up and down in synchrony Uses: to invite the class to work more quietly Gesture 2: Uno, due, tre… (Engl. “One, two, three”) Description: thumb, index, and middle finger of one hand raised in progression while the rest of the fingers remain closed in a fist Uses: to enumerate a sequence

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

91

Gesture 3: Vieni/Venga/Venite qui (Engl. “Come here”) Description: palm of one hand facing up, fingers moving quickly in a fanlike fashion Uses: to call a student close to where the teacher stands Gesture 4: Um… (Engl. “Um…”) Description: lips closing tightly while the head shakes from one side to the other Uses: to indicate that an answer is not quite the one the teacher expected Gesture 5: No no (Engl. “No no”) Description: index finger raised at the shoulder level and moving sideways while the rest of the fingers stay closed in a fist, sometimes accompanied by a head shake Uses: to convey a negative response Gesture 6: Mancano due minuti… (Engl. “Two minutes left…”) Description: pointing at the clock in class or showing the teacher’s watch Uses: to pace students’ activities according to time left Gesture 7: Ma come! (Engl. “How come!”) Description: hands in prayer position moving up and down, sometimes accompanied by chin rising and eyes looking up Uses: to express disappointment or frustration, for example due to a student’s incorrect answer Gesture 8: Bravo! Brava! Bravi! Brave! (Engl. “Well done!”) Description: head emphatically performing a beating movement as one pronounces the congratulation words Uses: to congratulate someone, for example a student’s performance Gesture 9: Ieri, la settimana scorsa, l’anno passato (Engl. “Yesterday, last week, the year gone by”) Description: hand over one’s shoulder waving in a fan-like fashion, back and forth Uses: to emphasize past time or to suggest verb conjugation in the past Gesture 10: Domani, la settimana prossima, l’anno che verrà (Engl. “Tomorrow, next week, the year to come”) Description: hand or fingers of one hand indicating a spot in front of the speaker’s space Uses: to emphasize future time or to suggest verb conjugation in the future Gesture 11: Allora? (Engl. “And so?”) Description: opening the arms to the side, bended at the elbow, while palms of the hands are held facing up; the face assumes a questioning expression (e.g., eyes open wide) Uses: to show that one is waiting for a response

92

Chapter Three

Gesture 12: Scusa? Scusi? Scusate? (Engl. informal, formal, and plural “I beg your pardon?”) Description: leaning the body forward showing one side of the head, sometimes accompanied by a hand holding the back of the ear Uses: to request someone to repeat the words they just uttered, or to call their attention to their answer as an invitation to think about it and possibly change it Gesture 13: “o” (Engl. Italian sound for the vowel “o”) Description: closing thumb and index finger of one hand in a ring, held at a shoulder level for it to be visible to an audience Uses: to indicate that the final sound in a word is the vowel “o,” for example in verb conjugations Gesture 14: tu, Lei (Engl. informal, formal “you”) Description: index finger pointing at or a palm facing up stretching out in the direction of a specific person Uses: to call on someone’s response Gesture 15: Quasi… (Engl. “Not quite…”) Description: thumb and index of one hand form a semi-circle and the wrist causes the hand to give short rotation movements while the face assumes an expression that indicates approximation (e.g., lips firmly close together as head gives little shake movements) Uses: to indicate that someone is close to a correct answer Gesture 16: Un po’, ancora un po’ (Engl. “A little bit, a little bit more”) Description: thumb and index finger of the same hand come close to one another without touching while the rest of the fingers stay closed in a fist; the face and the upper body skrink together to suggest the idea of something small Uses: to show a small quantity or to indicate that something small is missing, for example a word is missing in a sequence of words Gesture 17: Aspetta! Aspetti! Aspettate (Engl. informal, formal, and plural “Hold on! Wait!”) Description: palms of both hands facing an audience, held relatively close to the speaker’s body, sometimes giving small beating movements Uses: to ask someone to pause a moment, to stop someone from continuing an activity, to correct someone’s words Gesture 18: Più tardi (Engl. “Later”) Description: an index finger produces small rotating movements while the rest of the fingers stay closed in a fist Uses: to suggest that something will take place or will be done later Gesture 19: Cosa, cos’è? (Engl. “What, what is it?”)

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

93

Description: the upper part of body and the head give a quick movement upwards, with eyebrows rising and eyes widening Uses: to ask what something is all about Gesture 20: Dove, dov’è? (Engl. “Where, where is it?”) Description: a hand with palm facing down is placed on the forehead while the eyes open wide Uses: to ask where something or someone is located Gestures and nonverbal behavior in class contribute to adding a different dimension of competence in language learning. Danesi (2000:35) claims that learners’ discourse is “far too literal and devoid of target cultural meanings.” The author argues that learners lack kinesic competence (i.e., movement), paralinguistic competence (e.g., intonation), proxemic competence (i.e., physical distance), and socio-cultural competence (e.g., social roles), even when their knowledge of the target verbal language is very good. Danesi (2000) proposes to augment class activities that create opportunities for students to reflect on how meanings encode in the target language. The author believes that more exposure to signs of different kinds, songs, musical texts, metaphors, etc. of the target speech community is beneficial to language learners. Diadori (1989, 1990) too agrees with the idea that language learners lack kinesic competence. The author says that gestures do not generally form part of the content of language classes because, in general, the study of nonverbal language lags behind compared to the study of verbal languages. Little or no mention is made of the communicative function of gestures and their relationship with speech, even when textbooks and language classes embrace the communicative approach. Diadori (1989, 1990) argues that developing kinesic competence can, instead, make the concept of communication competence a more realistic objective in language classes. Being able to examine gestures and other nonverbal signs, their register, and uses can help learners understand what is entailed in interaction with native speakers, and recognize the appropriate significance of gestures without incurring mistakes or, even, embarrassing situations. Along with Danesi (2000) and Diadori (1989, 1990), Poggi (1986) says that time dedicated to the practice of, and reflection on, target nonverbal behavior in language classes can make students more aware of their communicative skills and possibilities; they can develop more understanding of meanings and semantics in general; and they can appreciate the potential of verbal and nonverbal communication. Gestures and other nonverbal means of a target language enable learners to explore new ways

Chapter Three

94

of being in the world. If they can incorporate those nonverbal aspects, learners move outside of their own culture and live an embodied experience. They become more of actors in a new language. Material that includes nonverbal information can enrich class activities of various kinds. Poggi (1986) proposes the discussion of any type of content present in drawings, photos, maps, charts, and drama. T.V., newspapers, and magazines are also good sources. Literature too provides valuable information. As Diadori (1989, 1990) notes, literature often describes nonverbal behavior in a literal or metaphorical way, in a descriptive or synthetic way, with or without details. Very rarely, however, do language classes engage in interpretation and comment on these descriptions. Diadori (1989, 1990) offers some indications of how kinesic competence can become part of the language syllabus. With attention to gestures in particular, the author says that they should be selected as follows: x x x

symbolic rather than mimetic gestures; gestures currently used in the target language community; gestures recognized within the national territory of the target language community, regardless of their use across geographical areas and across subjects (Diadori, 1989, 1990).

Diadori (1989, 1990) recommends that target gestures be introduced in accordance with similar criteria followed in the presentation of verbal language. For Italian classes, Livello Soglia (1981) can offer useful guidelines in this sense. Specifically, gestures should be classified as: x x x x

gestures that express social conventions (e.g., greetings); gestures that express feelings (e.g., happiness); gestures that indicate an action or an intention of an action (e.g., ask somebody to be quiet); gestures that express opinions, that allow someone to answer a question, to indicate, etc. (Diadori, 1989, 1990).

For each gesture category, Diadori (1989, 1990) believes that it is important to include this information: x x x

a picture of the gestures; a definition of the gestures; description of the bodily parts involved in the performance of the gestures;

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada x x x

95

the communicative act that the gestures express; register; the linguistic expressions that accompany, or substitute for, the gestures.

Following the recommendations of the above-mentioned scholars, we decided to bring a selection of Italian gestures to the attention of Canadian beginner and intermediate students of Italian9. The study took place during the academic year 2004–2005. On sporadic occasions, students had inquired about the reason for frequent use of gestures in Italians’ interactions. This fact inspired us to investigate students’ interpretation of some typical Italian gestures. The fifteen beginner students who participated in an informal exercise were attending an Italian class at the University of Toronto. The ten intermediate students were senior students attending George Brown College in Toronto. The visual material that we used was organized in two series of gestures: one where the hands were the main bodily part involved in the performance of the gestures; the other where the face was the relevant part. This exercise represented the pilot study of the research work that we carried out in the following years and that will be discussed in the remaining sections of this chapter. After distributing eight sketches of Italian emblems, we asked the two groups of students to provide a verbal explanation for each gesture on the side of the sketches. The students were not given any verbal help at this time. Only later were the students informed about the actual meanings of the eight gestures. They were provided with an interpretation from a native speaker’s perspective. During a discussion activity, we asked the students to explain how and why they had interpreted each gesture the way they did. We then gave them details of possible changes in meaning, register, and people who are more likely to use those gestures (e.g., adults vs. children). We continued the activity by asking the students to repeat the same exercise, this time with the help of some verbal commentary. In a multiple-choice exercise, the students were expected to select the best option that, in their opinion, rendered the meaning of each gesture. During the two steps of the exercise, we were able to make the following observations. In the first place, presenting nonverbal material to L2 classes poses a number of difficulties. It was apparent that language classes are not usually acquainted with the culturally based behavior used in communication by the target language community. This is even more evident in beginners’ classes. The majority of the students interpreted the gesture of stroking one’s chin with the thumb and index of the same hand as meaning “shaving” or “thinking.” The target meaning was “I’m bored, it’s boring.” Not knowing the emblematic meaning of the gestures, the

96

Chapter Three

students provided a mimetic rather than symbolic interpretation. If verbal language and context had been present, the students may have tried a different interpretation or they may have called the mimetic interpretation in question. At times, however, verbal language did not facilitate the interpretation of gestures. We noticed that when provided with a verbal commentary, the students did not find it always clarifying and meaningful. It is often true that speech accompanying gestures is made of idiomatic expressions or very short phrases. In our material, an example of this was the emblem that indicates le botte (Engl. “menace of a beating”), a gesture that adults usually make to children. One of the accompanying commentaries for this gesture was the idiomatic expression Te le prendi! (Engl. “you are in trouble”). The feminine and plural pronoun le referring to the Italian botte (Engl. “beating”) can easily puzzle non-native speakers unless the teacher introduces gender and number of the word “beating” in Italian. Because we had not explained the expression beforehand, students were not aware of its meaning and probably felt uneasy with the expression. Although the students were called to interpret gestures in two stages, one before and one after a class discussion, explanation of contents did not assure full understanding of the gestures. Talking about emblems out of context, or within contexts created only through words, does not guarantee the understanding of L2 gestures. Understanding might improve with the help of other visual material, for example a movie scene where gestures are part of face-to-face interactions and occur in specific communicative contexts. We also observed that different types of gestures can have a different impact on students’ interpretations. Emblems involving only the use of hands certainly posed a greater challenge than those including the face as well. It seemed that the face provided useful clues for the students to interpret the gestures correctly. Furthermore, some emblems reminded students of emblems present in cultures other than Italian. This was the case of the so-called “fingertips kiss” gesture, which was known particularly well by the students who were familiar with French. The gesture means “good, delicious” or “perfect” (see Diadori, 1990). The emblem is one of the most commonly known around the world, not so much as an Italian gesture, but as a Mediterranean gesture (see Morris et al. 1979). This fact made interpretation easier compared to the other gestures in the exercise. As for speech that explained the gestures, the students often used English idioms. This may indicate that they found idioms the most appropriate language for this type of activity. Idioms usually convey

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

97

immediacy and spontaneity of verbal language, as do gestures in nonverbal language. Age group also made a difference in interpretations. The senior students seemed to have a better time talking about meanings, which was revealed by their richer and more articulated vocabulary. This practical exercise with gestures in Italian language classes was not systematically organized and controlled for research purposes. Activities of this kind are, however, very important in the promotion of language awareness. We believe that the experience of discussing meanings, values, and assumptions behind Italian gestures, both from the perspective of the native and non-native speaker, contributed to more cross-cultural understanding and, possibly, enriched students’ competence in the target language.

3.5. The interpretation of Italian emblematic gestures by Canadian learners of Italian: Three studies The theoretical concepts and the pedagogical suggestions introduced in this book up until this point have inspired the development of three studies with learners of Italian at the University of Toronto, McMaster University, and the University of Windsor, in Ontario, Canada (Salvato, 2011, 2015). Beginner and intermediate students of Italian were invited to interpret a selection of gestures typically used by Italian native speakers today. The main purpose of this exercise was to draw the participants’ attention to meanings and functions of emblematic gestures in Italian oral communication. Without expecting learners to adopt native speakers’ nonverbal behavior as traditional approaches to language learning would aspire to, we believe that class activities oriented towards recognition and interpretation skills of nonverbal aspects of a language can help the understanding and acceptance of cultural norms that pertain to communication in a target language community. We argue that this competence promotes a more complete preparation among language learners and is useful in assisting them during interactions outside the classroom (see the concepts of multicompetence and L2 user in Cook, 1992, 1995, 2007). We also believe that nonverbal competence makes multilingualism a wider concept than verbal language alone. Language learning in the classroom typically prioritizes the formal aspects that define a language from a verbal point of view and leaves nonverbal language too often uncommented on or underrepresented in the curriculum. Our studies also aimed at examining the influence of the participants’ background languages on the interpretation of the Italian gestures. Many of the learners in our studies knew at least two languages. As Gullberg

98

Chapter Three

(2009b) advocates, more gesture studies should include speakers of different languages to see if their linguistic preparation can reveal new insights into the language acquisition process. Research that addresses the question of cross-linguistic influence, or transfer, needs to consider the variables that contribute to such an influence. In discussing rigorous investigation on transfer, Jarvis (2000) identifies nine variables that control for effects of L1 influence and that can confirm or reject similarities within the same group of L1 speakers (i.e., intra-group similarities), differences between groups with different L1s (i.e., inter-L1group differences), differences between native and non-native speakers, and similarities between the characteristics found in the L1 of one group and those found in the interlanguage of the same group (i.e., L1–IL performance similarity). Among the nine variables identified in Jarvis (2000), the following are relevant to our studies: language background; type and amount of target language exposure; target language proficiency; language distance between the first language and the target language; task type and area of language use; prototypicality, coreness, and markedness of the linguistic feature. Our studies did not pay specific attention to the other variables in Jarvis (2000): age; personality, motivation, language aptitude; and social and educational background. Because our studies targeted university students learning Italian in Ontario, this fact nonetheless partly controlled the characteristics of the population of reference with respect to those latter variables. To our knowledge, hardly any investigation has been carried out with Italian gestures and the interpretation of this nonverbal language by Canadian learners of Italian who are speakers of different languages. For this reason, the three studies introduced in the following sections offer valuable insights into the experience of interpreting Italian L2 gestures in a multilingual and multicultural context such as the one found in Canadian university settings.

3.5.1. The characteristics, the gestures, and the methodology of the studies The three studies considered six of the 100 Italian emblematic gestures described in Diadori (1990). They were organized in such a way as to inquire about whether (a) there is any correlation between the languages that the participants know and their interpretation of the gestures; (b) Italian L2 verbal language facilitates the interpretation of Italian L2 gestures; and (c) context created in mini-dialogues can help the

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

99

interpretation of Italian L2 gestures. Since the participants in the studies are learners of Italian at the university level in Ontario, where Italian is not only a foreign or a second language, but also a heritage language, we aimed to investigate the impact of the language background and of the language proficiency on the interpretation of Italian emblematic gestures. We assumed that learners whose language background includes a number of languages, or prior knowledge of Italian (e.g., learners with an Italian family background), or knowledge of a language historically related to Italian (i.e., a Romance language), would be in a more favorable position in the interpretation of the Italian emblematic gestures. Particularly, we assumed that people tend to associate clues from different sources by performing a process of inferring, which, among other things, depends on knowledge of languages. The genetic relationship among languages is one of the factors that can help us understand the reasons why learners interpret a target language the way they do (cf. Jarvis and Pavlenko, 2008). Research in third language (L3) acquisition studies the factors that prompt a preference for a specific language of a speaker’s linguistic repertoire in language learning (e.g., Dewaele, 1998; Williams and Hammarberg, 1998). Whenever the learners in our study knew French and Spanish, we expected these languages to play a role in the interpretation process of the six Italian gestures. French and Spanish are related to Italian from a genetic point of view (i.e., they all are Romance languages). Moreover, French is an official language in Canada and is learned at school, and Spanish is one of the commonly learned languages in Canada (see Faculty of Arts and Science, 2005). We also assumed that when gestures are accompanied by Italian verbal language and a context of occurrence, such as a dialogue, learners are facilitated in the interpretation of the L2 gestures of our study. Ultimately, the testing of these hypotheses would give some insights into what meanings and concepts L2 learners relate to Italian emblematic gestures, and how different, or how similar, they are from the meanings and concepts attributed to the same gestures by Italian native speakers. Yet, in the evaluation of the differences and similarities, we had to take into account that the participants in the studies may have been exposed to nonstandard varieties of Italian verbal and nonverbal language. A three-page questionnaire was distributed to show the sketches of the Italian gestures, and to collect information about the participants’ language background and their understanding of the gestures of our study. The gestures were performed in front of each class by the main researcher, a native speaker of Italian. Figure 3-1 shows the gestures chosen for our study (sketches are taken from Diadori, 1990):

100

Chapter Three

Fig. 3-1 The six Italian emblematic gestures

The meanings of the gestures are G1=“agreement”; G2=“good food”; G3=“perfect”; G4=“money”; G5=“frustration about oneself or others”; G6=“disagreement.” This choice of gestures was based on the following characteristics. G1 and G6 have opposite meanings. G2 and G5 involve bodily parts in addition to the hands. This combination of gesture types was expected to correlate with interpretation difficulties of different kinds. In line with previous studies, Salvato (2011, 2015) assumed that the more bodily parts participate in the performance of a gesture, the more clues are made available for its interpretation and for the interpretation of a communicative exchange (cf. Graham and Argyle, 1975; Kellerman, 2001; Ricci Bitti, 1992; Rimé and Schiaratura, 1991). Diadori (1990) says that the gestures in her collection are used in different communicative contexts and by different media (e.g.,

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

101

newspapers, T.V.). For this reason, it is expected that Italian native speakers understand their meaning although uses may vary across regions, social classes, and individuals. All six gestures can be explained with a single word or a short phrase, which also contributed to our choice of this selection. Finally, we decided to work with six gestures only because we needed to take into account the time available to conduct our research in class and the fact that six gestures can be clearly reproduced all together on one page. As far as the conceptualization of reference in these gestures is concerned, Salvato (2011:386–7) explains that: gesture 1 (G1) conveys the meaning of ‘agreement’ by showing two index fingers coming together and tapping repeatedly on their inner side. The Italian verbal expression that defines G1 is andare d’accordo (‘to get along’). G2 indicates the meaning of ‘good food’ by rotating the tip of an index finger against one’s cheek. The cheek stands for the mouth, the place where food is tasted. The Italian verbal expression that describes G2 is buono (‘good’). G3 conveys the meaning of ‘perfect’ by means of thumb and index finger of one hand joining together in a ring and sliding to the outer side as if they were pulling a thread. In Italian, one of the verbal expressions that describe G3 includes the word “filo” (‘thread’, tutto fatto per filo e per segno, literally “everything done by thread and sign”, idiomatic “everything is done perfectly”). G4 conveys the meaning of ‘money’ by acting out the gesture of handling paper money between thumb and index finger of the same hand. The Italian verbal expression used for G4 is soldi (‘money’). G5 indicates ‘frustration’ by showing an up-anddown movement of two hands joint in prayer position at the chest level. G5 conceptualizes the verbal meaning of ti prego (literally “I beg you”, idiomatic “do me a favour”). Finally, G6 conveys the meaning of ‘disagreement’ by tapping the tips of two index fingers one against the other. In Italian, the verbal expression that describes G6 is non andare d’accordo (‘to not get along’).

This description reveals that G4 (=“money”) establishes a direct link between the bodily movement that it performs and the meaning that it conveys. The movement of pulling a thread in G3 (=“perfect”) establishes a direct link with the word “thread” of the Italian phrase that defines G3. On the other hand, G1 (=“agreement”), G2 (=“good food”), G5 (=“frustration”), and G6 (=“disagreement”) demand a more complex interpretation of their bodily movement: joining fingers implies agreement whereas tapping fingers one against the other implies disagreement; rotating an index finger against a cheek indicates not only eating but also

102

Chapter Three

the appreciation of food; hands in prayer position express an emphatic request for something to change.

3.5.2. The 2006 study 329 learners of Italian at the University of Toronto (i.e., St. George Campus and Mississauga Campus) and at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, were invited to interpret the six Italian emblematic gestures in three steps, with and without the provision of Italian verbal language (Salvato, 2011, 2015). The main purpose of this exercise was to draw L2 learners’ attention to the form, meaning, and function of Italian emblematic gestures in combination or not with verbal language. The ratio between correct and incorrect responses was analyzed to see if the gestures represented difficult material to interpret. A questionnaire that inquired about language background and perception of the Italian gestures was also distributed to the participants. Language proficiency, number, and types of languages known were the main variables of interest in the 2006 study. The 2006 study revealed a complex language scenario. The participants belonged to three proficiency levels: absolute beginners (i.e., 100 level, N=258); beginners with some knowledge of Italian or an Italian family background (i.e., 101 level, N=59); and beginners with four-year highschool training in Italian (i.e., 152 level, N=12). Moreover, the participants were speakers of 38 different mother tongues. Only a minority (i.e., 16 per cent) was monolingual (i.e., speakers of one language, their mother tongue, which most likely meant English); 84 per cent were speakers of at least two languages, of which 32 per cent were L3 speakers and 18 per cent were fourth language (L4) or more speakers. Depending on the number of languages that they knew, the participants were grouped into specific language classes. Language class two, for example, meant knowledge of two languages. Moreover, the participants who had knowledge of one or more Romance languages (N=258) were separated from the participants who had no knowledge of any Romance language (N=71). The complexity of the language backgrounds was reflected in the interpretations that the 329 participants exhibited. It is interesting to note that there were cases of multiple interpretations attributed to the same gesture, yet few learners were able to provide an interpretation for each gesture and not all attempts were successful (Salvato, 2011, 2015). The 2006 study also asked the participants to assess their own perception of the Italian gestures and say whether their language background helped them in the interpretation task. The answer to the

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

103

question “Do you find that your language and culture background help you in interpreting the gestures? Please briefly explain why and how” was analyzed closely to see if there was any correlation between correct answers and type of language background. The participants with knowledge of at least one Romance language (N=258) were separated from the participants with no Romance language knowledge (N=71), and their perception of the gestures was compared. Figure 3-2 shows the ratio of correct and incorrect responses given by participants with a Romance language background who said that their language background helped them interpret the gestures. Except for the St. George 152 group, the majority of participants interpreted the gestures incorrectly:

Fig. 3-2 Ratio between correct and incorrect responses

Figure 3-3 shows the ratio of correct and incorrect responses given by the participants with a Romance language background who said that their language background did not help them interpret the gestures. The majority of the participants interpreted the gestures incorrectly:

104

Chapter Three

Fig. 3-3 Ratio between correct and incorrect responses

Figure 3-4 then shows the perception of the gestures by learners with a non-Romance language background who said that their language background helped them interpret the gestures. Once again, except for participants in the 152 group, the majority interpreted the gestures incorrectly:

Fig. 3-4 Ratio between correct and incorrect responses among non-Romance language speakers

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

105

Finally, Figure 3-5 shows the perception of the gestures by participants with a non-Romance language background who said that their language background did not help them interpret the gestures. The majority of participants in all groups, even St. George 152, interpreted the gestures incorrectly:

Fig. 3-5 Ratio between correct and incorrect responses among non-Romance language speakers

The four figures indicate that the participants in the higher proficiency level (i.e., St. George 152 level) outperformed the other groups in three cases out of four. The 152 group exhibited a higher proportion of correct answers when they were asked to judge the influence of their language background in the interpretation of the gestures of this study. The other groups, whether with or without knowledge of a Romance language, were not as accurate in their prediction. This result suggests that proficiency level, more than knowledge of historically related languages, is a better predictor of how correct learners will be in perceiving the influence of their language background in the interpretation task proposed by the 2006 study.

3.5.3. The 2008 study In 2008, the same type of study was repeated. A new set of questions was developed starting from the observation that we could collect better

106

Chapter Three

insights into learners’ perception and understanding of the Italian gestures if we refined the 2006 survey of questions. Ten intermediate learners of Italian at the University of Windsor in Ontario were invited to interpret the six Italian emblematic gestures of the 2006 study and answer a number of questions. It is important to bear in mind that during one of the classes of that semester, the instructor had explained the meaning and use of Italian emblematic gestures including the six under examination. Also, since the instructor was a native of Italy, it is probable that Italian gestures of different types were present in her normal classroom interaction, although not necessarily explained each time. Unlike in the 2006 study, the ten participants were asked to interpret the gestures in one step, which did not include any verbal commentary. The first section of the survey, Student Information, is short, only asking for three pieces of information: year of study, gender, and program. The second section, Language Background, is structured in a very precise manner in order to avoid misunderstandings in the matter of defining the language background. In the 2006 study, participants were asked the general question, “What is your native tongue and what other languages do you know?” Evaluation of the answers led to the realization that the term “native tongue” was ambiguous. Some participants were bilingual and could say that they have two native tongues. Some grew up speaking two languages but now only master one and thus they could claim it as their native tongue. Others spoke one language at home but used another language outside of home, which could make them unsure about which one to consider as their native tongue. In an effort to address this complexity, the 2008 questionnaire gives the participants an opportunity to express clearly their relationship to the language they claim as their first language. The 2008 questionnaire asks the following and provides four optional answers: According to this definition, “A native tongue(s) is the language(s) my parents taught me and that I used in my household while growing up,” what is your native tongue(s)? _________________________ Do you identify with any of the following groups? i. I was raised with two languages, both of which my parents spoke to me. I now master both languages ii. I was raised with two languages, both of which my parents spoke to me. I now master only one of these languages iii. I was raised speaking one language with my family but I used a different language outside of my home (e.g. school, neighbourhood, etc.). I now master both languages

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

107

iv. I was raised speaking one language with my family but I used a different language outside of my home (e.g. school, neighbourhood, etc.). I now master only one of these languages. Specify which one _______________

In 2006, ambiguity was a concern also when we asked “What other languages do you know?” This question did not prompt participants to describe their level of knowledge of those languages. For this reason, the 2008 survey asked to rank knowledge of second, third, and additional language, by means of a scale from one to four in the areas of listening, reading, speaking, and writing. The third section of the 2008 study, Italian Gestures, consists of nine questions that invite participants to identify the degree of their agreement or disagreement with a given statement. The statements focus on exposure to Italian gestures in a variety of settings and on perception of gesture use. In the 2006 survey, these areas were only addressed by asking the participants to discuss whether they considered the six gestures to be typically Italian (i.e., “Would you consider these gestures typically Italian?”). The 2008 survey goes a step further by addressing in a clear way the sources through which one is exposed to Italian gestures. Participants can express their view on a Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree: x x x x x x x x x

Italian is a language that uses many gestures. My family members use Italian gestures. I have been exposed to Italian gestures by my teacher in my Italian class. I have been exposed to Italian gestures in the textbooks for my Italian class. I have observed Italian gestures used by Italians in Italy. I have observed Italian gestures used by Italians in Canada. I have observed Italian gestures used in movies, texts, and other outside media. Gestures play an important role in my native tongue(s). My knowledge of other languages besides my native tongue has helped me be able to interpret Italian gestures.

The last two questions focus particularly on the influence from other languages. Participants are given the opportunity to identify a specific language that has aided them in understanding the Italian gestures. The 2006 survey inquired about this aspect in a more open-ended fashion (i.e., “Do you find that your language and culture background help you in

108

Chapter Three

interpreting the gestures?”), which resulted in a lesser amount of precise and quantifiable responses. The third section invites participants to rank the gestures from the most difficult to the least difficult to interpret. A series of options can help identify the reason for interpretation difficulty or, when unable to understand the factors, participants can choose the option “I don’t know, I can’t explain it”: What gestures do you find the most difficult to interpret? Please rank the six given gestures, with 1 being the most difficult to interpret and 6 being the least difficult to interpret. Circle the single most important reason for this interpretation difficulty: x I’ve never seen these gestures before. x I associate multiple meanings to the same gesture. x I confuse one gesture with another among the six. x I don’t know, I can’t explain it. x Other:___________________________________

Having discussed the changes that the 2006 study underwent in 2008, we will now present our findings. Table 3-1 shows a summary of the 2008 study. Column L1 reports exact information about the participants’ mother tongue. The options in parentheses indicate whether learners are monolingual or bilingual, and if they are bilingual what languages they still master. Columns L2, L3, and L4 or more indicate the ranking of skills (i.e., listening, reading, speaking, and writing) between 1 and 4 in the participants’ background languages, with 4 being the highest. In the final column, the correct gesture interpretations are recorded. Wherever an option does not apply, there will be a n/a entry. We can note that none of the bilingual profiles fit with learners 2 and 5 as they are monolingual speakers. Learner 9 is the only native speaker of an Italian dialect (i.e., Friulano) and of Italian. Italian is an L3 or L4 for the majority of the group and it is an L2 for learner 6. The participants self-assessed their abilities in Italian mostly in the range between 2 and 3. As far as the interpretation of the gestures is concerned, all gestures were interpreted correctly at least once. G5 (i.e., “frustration”) was interpreted correctly three times whereas G4 (i.e., “money”) was interpreted correctly twice. Five participants out of ten were not able to interpret any of the gestures:

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

Student

L1

L2

L3

1

Romanian (iii) English (no) Albanian (iii) English (ivEnglish) English (no) English (iiEnglish) English (ivEnglish) English (i, iii) Friulano/ Italian (iii) English (iii)

English (4-4-4-4) French (2-2-3-3) English (4-4-4-4) Chaldean (3-1-1-2)

French (2-2-3-3) Danish (4-3-3-4) Italian (1-2-3-4) Spanish (2-4-4-3)

French (2-2-3-4) Italian (2-3-3-3)

2 3 4

5 6

7

8 9

10

109

L4 or more Italian (2-2-3-3) Italian (3-3-3-4) n/a

Correct responses G4, G5

Italian (2-3-4-3)

None

Italian (1-2-3-4) n/a

n/a

G1, G5, G6 None

Spanish (2-2-3-2)

French (2-1-1-1)

Italian (1-1-1-1)

None

French (3-2-3-4) English (4-4-4-4)

Italian (3-2-3-4) French (2-2-3-4)

n/a

G3, G5

n/a

G2

French (4-4-4-4)

Italian (2-2-3-2)

n/a

G4

n/a

None None

Table 3-1 The 2008 study

Table 3-2 indicates the ranking of gesture difficulty and the reasons why. Learners 2 and 9 expressed their own view rather than choosing one option among the four given. It is interesting to note that the learners said that they had not seen the gestures before, or they had forgotten their meaning, or they remembered seeing the gestures but not receiving an explanation, although the instructor had purposely gone over those gestures and their meanings during one of her classes in the semester:

Chapter Three

110

Î

Î

Î

Î

1

+ difficult G3

G6

G2

G1

G5

difficult G4

2

G2

G3

G4

G1

G6

G5

3

G2

G1

G6

G3

G5

G4

4

-

-

G3, G6

G4, G5

G1, G2

-

5

G4

G2

-

G3

G5

G1, G6

6

G4

G2

G3

G6

G1

G5

7

G2

G3

G4

G6

G1

G5

8

G6

G1

G5

G4

G2

G3

9

G3

G4

G6

G1

G5

G2

10

G3

G1

G2

G6

G5

G4

Student

Reason I’ve never seen these gestures before “I have seen gestures, forget what they mean or have never been explained” I’ve never seen these gestures before I associate multiple meanings to the same gesture I’ve never seen these gestures before I don’t know, I can’t explain it I’ve never seen these gestures before “I’ve seen them, but didn’t understand them” I don’t know, I can’t explain it

Table 3-2 Ranking of gesture difficulty

Giving one point for every gesture in the column that received the ranking as most difficult, two points for the next column over, and so on, until reaching six points assigned to every gesture that received the

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

111

ranking as least difficult, we can determine the overall ranking of gesture difficulty. The totals can be found in Table 3-3:

Gesture Points

+ difficult G3 27

Î G2 29

Î G6 35

Î G4 36

Î G1 39

- difficult G5 50

Table 3-3 Total ranking of gesture difficulty

We then asked nine questions to see what opinion participants held with respect to Italian gestures. Table 3-4 shows that learners responded very similarly to question A, with all of the responses being strongly agree or agree, whereas in questions B, E, and I, responses were distributed along the scale. In sum, the participants agreed with the idea that Italian is a gesture-rich language (cf. Kendon, 2004). They also strongly agreed with the statement saying that they had been exposed to Italian gestures in their Italian class, or through movies or other media, and while observing Italians in Canada. Table 3-4 also indicates that the learners saw Italian gestures used by Italians in Italy to a lesser extent than in Canada. This could depend on whether they visited Italy and established contacts with Italians overseas. Participants also had different experiences with gesture uses in their family and in their L1: Question

SA

Agree

A Italian is a language that uses many gestures B My family members use Italian gestures C I have been exposed to Italian gestures by my teacher in my Italian class D I have been exposed to Italian gestures in the textbooks for my Italian E I have observed Italian gestures used by Italians in Italy F I have observed Italian gestures used by Italians in Canada G I have observed Italian gestures used in movies, texts, and other outside media

7

3

3

2

2

7

Not sure

Disagree

SD

1

1

3

1

3

4

3

2

3

2

1

4

5

7

2

2 1

1

Chapter Three

112

H Gestures play an important role in my native tongue(s) I My knowledge of other languages besides my native tongue has helped me be able to interpret Italian gestures

3

3

1

6

1

3 2

1

Table 3-4 Responses to general questions

Table 3-5 offers detailed information about question I, which asks, “My knowledge of other languages besides my native tongue has helped me be able to interpret Italian gestures.” Besides agreeing or disagreeing with this statement, some participants took the opportunity to list what languages aided them in interpreting the gestures and identified any specific gesture that was easier to interpret as a result. We can note that the majority is in agreement with the idea that other languages besides the mother tongue facilitated the interpretation of the gestures. Both Romance languages (i.e., Romanian, French, Italian) and non-Romance languages (i.e., English, Albanian) were perceived as being useful in helping the interpretation. Only learners 1 and 10 do comment on the relationship between knowledge of specific languages and specific gestures: Student

Response

Explanation (verbatim)

1 2

Agree Disagree

3 4 5 6 7

Agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Agree

Romanian—agreement and money gestures I have seen gestures, forget what they mean or have never been explained Albanian English -

8 9 10

French Italian French has helped, they use many gestures. None in particular.

Table 3-5 Knowledge of other languages helped interpret Italian gestures

In sum, the 2008 survey was successful in investigating learners’ perception and interpretation of the Italian gestures. It also enabled us to

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

113

gain a better understanding of learners’ knowledge of the languages they already know in relation to the Italian language that they are currently studying. It provided information that helped us improve the original survey of questions and develop a new one.

3.5.4. The 2009 study After a careful analysis of the 2008 data, we revised the original questionnaire one more time and we distributed it to seventeen intermediate Italian learners at the University of Windsor. This follow-up study was carried out in April 2009 during one of the last classes in the semester. The 2009 survey remains divided up into three sections: Student Information, Language Background, and Italian Gestures. Within the Language Background section, question (c) was revised. Previously it asked learners to rank their knowledge of other languages in the areas of listening, reading, speaking, and writing. In the 2009 survey, learners were asked to rank their language knowledge according to the amount of time they had spent acquiring the language, with 0 indicating one month or less of continuous use or instruction; 1 indicating one to six months; 2 indicating between six months and a year; and 3 indicating more than a year. This change was introduced under the assumption that the amount of exposure to a language might have an effect on the interpretation of the Italian gestures (see the concept of cross-linguistic influence in Cenoz, Hufeisen, and Jessner, 2001; Jarvis and Pavlenko, 2008). Moreover, we noted that the interpretation of one’s listening, reading, speaking, and writing skills, which was requested in 2008, may be too subjective a matter. In the 2009 survey, learners were also asked to indicate how recent their use of or instruction in the languages had been. We believed that this was a necessary addition to the survey because spending a certain amount of time in learning a language can be offset by how recently this acquisition has taken place. For example, one may spend a long time learning a language but if this took place in the past and maybe other languages have been learned in the meantime, the recency of use of other languages might make a difference in the interpretation task of our exercise. For this reason, the 2009 survey asked information about the length of exposure during the last six months (i.e., A), one year ago (i.e., B), two years ago (i.e., C), or three or more years ago (i.e., D). Specifically, the question posed is the same as in 2008 but one optional answer was added in order to reinforce the difference between monolingualism and bilingualism:

114

Chapter Three According to this definition, “A native tongue(s) is the language(s) my parents taught me and that I used in my household while growing up,” what is your native tongue(s)? ___________________________ With which of the following groups do you identify? Circle only one. i. I was raised speaking one language. Specify which one:________________________

In Table 3-6 below, the languages listed in the L1 column are accompanied by the option that identifies cases of bilingualism. Italicized languages in column L1 indicate what language is presently mastered between two native languages. We can note that some learners did not attempt to rank their languages. There are “not recorded” cases (i.e., NR). W6 and W16 did not specify the recency and the length of instruction in their L2 and L3. W1 and W9 did not provide precise information about mother tongues although they chose option iii, which refers to the ability of mastering two languages. W3, W6, and W16 are three cases of bilingualism with Italian and Italian dialects (i.e., Friulano, Veneto, and Calabrese). W1, W14, and W17 say that Italian is their L2 and the remaining ten learners indicate Italian as their L3 or L4. Unlike in 2008, the seventeen participants in the 2009 study selfassessed the length of use, or instruction in (i.e., 1, 2, 3, and 4), and exposure to (i.e., A, B, C, and D), the languages learned after the L1. Most learners say that they have used, or they have been instructed in, the target languages for a time between six months and a year (i.e., options 2 and 3), and that they have been exposed to those languages during the last six months or a year ago (i.e., options A and B). W1 is the only learner whose exposure to Italian happened three years ago and W11 is the only learner who used, or was instructed in, Italian for the shortest time (i.e., one to six months). As far as the interpretation of the gestures is concerned, G4 (i.e., “money”) and G5 (i.e., “frustration”) were interpreted correctly more often. Most learners were able to interpret correctly an average of two gestures. W6, who has an Italian family background, interpreted correctly four of the six gestures. W15, who does not have an Italian family background, interpreted correctly three of the six gestures. Finally, W7 and W17 did not interpret any of the six gestures:

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada Student

L1

L2

L3

L4 or more

W1

English (iii)

Italian (3D)

n/a

n/a

W2

English (i)

French (3D)

Italian (2A)

W3

Italian (Friulano & Veneto dialects) & English (ii) Spanish, English (ii) English (i)

French (3A)

Latin (3A)

Attic Greek (1C) n/a

English (3D) Spanish (1A) Calabrese

French (3D) German (3A) NR

Italian (2B) Italian (2A) n/a

French (3D) NR French (3A) English (3A)

Italian (2A) NR Italian (3A) French (3A)

n/a

French (3D) French (3D) French (3D)

Spanish (2C) Spanish (2D) Italian (2B)

Italian (1A) Italian (2A) n/a

Italian (3A) English (3A)

n/a

n/a

Italian (2A)

French (2D)

W4 W5 W6

Calabrese, English(iii)

W7

English (i)

W8 W9

English (i) English (iii)

W10

Romanian (iv)

W11

English (v)

W12

English (i)

W13

English (i)

W14

English (iii), Italian Serbian (i)

W15

NR German (0D) Italian (2A)

115

Correct responses (verbatim) G4, G5 (how the heck? Come mai?) G4 ,

G4, G5 (please, come on)

G5 (come on) G4 G2, G3 (it’s been done well), G4, G5 (oh my God) None G4 G4 G4, G5 dumfounded, serves like a sigh) G4 G4 G4, G5 (are you understanding/ listening to me?) G4, G5 G1 (relazione), G3 (sta/stai zilto/zilta), G5 (per piacere/ prego)

Chapter Three

116 W16

English & Italian (iii)

French

NR

NR

W17

English (i)

Italian (2A)

n/a

n/a

G3 (OK), G5 (Oh my! Disbelief) None

Table 3-6 The 2009 study

Table 3-7 lists the ranking of gestures from the most difficult to the least difficult and it identifies the reason for any interpretation difficulties. Unlike the 2008 survey, the 2009 questionnaire includes only three options: (i) “I’ve never seen these gestures before”; (ii) “I associate multiple meanings with the same gesture”; and (iii) “other.” Option (ii) asks students to specify the meanings, and option (iii) gives space for students to provide their own explanations. The majority of the participants said that they had never seen the gestures before. Unlike in 2008, the students had not been introduced to emblematic gestures during class hours. Some learners said that they would attribute more than one meaning to those gestures. Learners W3, W5, and W17 expressed their own view about gesture difficulty; and learner W6 did not choose any option: Î

Î

Î

Î

W1

+ difficult G6

G3

G1

G2

G4

difficult G5

W2

G1

G6

G2

G3

G4

G5

W3 W4

G6 G1

G2 G6

G1 G2

G3 G3

G4 G5

G5 G4

W5 W6 W7

G1 G1 G1

G6 G6 G4

G2 G4 G6

G3 G3 G3

G5 G5 G2

G4 G2 G5

Student

Reason I’ve never seen these gestures before I’ve never seen these gestures before Other I’ve never seen these gestures before; I associate multiple meanings with the same gesture Other I’ve never seen these gestures before

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

W8

G4

G3

G5

G6

G1

G2

W9

G3

G1

G6

G2

G4

G5

W10

-

-

-

-

-

-

W11

G4

G5

G6

G1

G2

G3

W12

G6

G3

G5

G2

G1

G4

W13

-

G1, G2

G3

G6

G5

G4

W14

G2

G4

G6

G1

G3

G5

W15

G6

G2

G1

G3

G4

G5

W16

G2, G4, G6

G1

-

-

G3

G5

W17

G5

G3

G2

G6

G1

G4

Table 3-7 Ranking of gesture difficulty

117

I’ve never seen these gestures before I’ve never seen these gestures before I associate multiple meanings with the same gesture I’ve never seen these gestures before I’ve never seen these gestures before; I associate multiple meanings with the same gesture I associate multiple meanings with the same gesture I’ve never seen these gestures before; I associate multiple meanings with the same gesture I associate multiple meanings with the same gesture I’ve never seen these gestures before Other

Chapter Three

118

In the same way as we did in 2008, we calculated the total amount of points received by each gesture in 2009. Although G5 (i.e., “frustration”) is the least difficult gesture to interpret in both studies, some differences are noted between the two studies. G3 (i.e., “perfect”) is the most difficult gesture in 2008, but not so difficult in 2009, when G6 (i.e., “disagreement”) ranks as the most difficult gesture:

Gesture Points

+ difficult G6 37

Î G1 43

Î G2 54

Î G3 56

Î G4 65

- difficult G5 87

Table 3-8 Ranking of gesture difficulty

Table 3-9 records the answers given to describe the specific reason for gesture difficulty. Most learners expressed some doubt or uncertainty or insufficient experience to be able to describe the meaning of the Italian gestures, even if they had seen them before. Four learners indicated only one or two gestures as familiar to them: Student W2 W3 W4

W5 W12

W14

Response I’ve never seen these gestures Other I’ve never seen these gestures; I associate multiple meanings with the same gesture Other I’ve never seen these gestures; I associate multiple meanings with the same gesture I’ve never seen these gestures; I associate multiple meanings with the same gesture

Explanation (verbatim) #1, #6 I’ve seen it but not often enough to know what it means gesture #6 used in Japanese anime to show shame

I’m not sure how these gestures vary through cultures gesture #4 = money or a little bit of…

I have seen these gestures done before but do not remember the meaning of them

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

W15

W17

I associate multiple meanings with the same gesture Other

119

“attention to the speaker” can be multiple gestures and many are ambiguous (in reference to G4) They’re out of context

Table 3-9 Responses to interpretation difficulty

Table 3-10 lists the responses to the general questions in the section on Italian Gestures. We can see that learners answered very similarly in question A, whereas in questions D and H, each possible response was given. Similarly to what happened in 2008, learners were in agreement in saying that Italian is a gesture-rich language (cf. Kendon, 2004). Most learners also said that they had seen Italian gestures in their Italian language class, or while watching movies, or while observing Italians in Canada. Table 3-10 also indicates that the seventeen participants saw Italian gestures used by Italians in Italy to a slightly lesser extent than Italian gestures used by Italians in Canada. Gesture uses in their families seem to vary but the majority say that gestures play an important role in their L1: Question

SA

Agree

Not sure

Disagree

A Italian is a language that uses many gestures B I have been exposed to Italian gestures by my teacher in my Italian class C I have been exposed to Italian gestures in the textbooks for my Italian class D I have observed Italian gestures used by Italians in Italy E I have observed Italian gestures used by Italians in Canada F I have observed Italian gestures used in movies, texts, and other outside media G Gestures play an important role in my native tongue(s)

11

6

H My family members use Italian gestures

SD

8

6

3

3

5

8

1

7

2

2

3

3

8

5

2

2

9

7

1

3

11

2

1

5

2

1

7

2

Chapter Three

120

I My knowledge of other languages besides my native tongue has helped me be able to interpret Italian gestures

4

7

6

Table 3-10 Results for general questions

In the 2009 study, participants answered question I “My knowledge of other languages besides my native tongue has helped me be able to interpret Italian gestures” by indicating a response varying between strongly agree and strongly disagree. They were also given the option of listing what languages aided them in interpreting the gestures and identifying any specific gestures that were easier to interpret as a result. Only four learners out of seventeen provided a response. W2 and W5 have English as L1 and they said that the influence came from that language, particularly in the interpretation of G2, G3, and G4. W4 and W13 agreed with the idea that the other languages that they know helped them interpret the Italian gestures. However, W4 is bilingual Spanish-English and indicated Spanish as the language that aided in the interpretation. W13 attributed to English, the L1, rather than to French, the L2, or to Italian, the L3, the reason for being helped in the interpretation: Student W2 W4

Response disagree agree

W5

disagree

W13

agree

Explanation (verbatim) L1 #2, 3, 4 T.V. all gestures, Spanish L1 gesture #3 I don’t know, because I am not sure if the meanings I wrote are correct; L1 #4 English

Table 3-11 Knowledge of other languages helped me interpret Italian gestures

The data collected in 2009 revealed that the revisions made to the 2008 questionnaire did not contribute significantly to the improvement of our survey. We noted that the simpler and more straightforward the question is, the more likely it is that participants will respond. Similarly, it may be beneficial to provide several options rather than giving space for individual answers (cf. McKay, 2006). The chances that learners will take the opportunity to explain themselves is very low, or they will respond in

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

121

less meaningful ways, which can be reason for frustration on the part of the researcher.

3.6. Conclusion This chapter discusses the position of gestures in the pedagogy of Italian, particularly in the multilingual and multicultural educational setting of Canadian universities in Ontario. The aim of this chapter is twofold. On the one hand, the chapter examines official documents and reference materials that direct the integration of gestures and other nonverbal behavior into Italian language classes. On the other hand, the chapter offers the results of a practical application of gestures to Italian classes in Canada. The chapter begins with an overview of some official documents that support the use of gestures as a methodology for language teaching and learning today. The chapter has found that with particular attention to Italian language pedagogy in Canada, there is still much improvement to be made in order to integrate nonverbal language with the teaching of verbal language. Very rarely do teachers and learners spend class time observing and reflecting on the significance of Italian nonverbal behavior, the relationship between gesture and speech, and the role that they both play in communication (cf. Danesi, 2000; Salvato, 2005, 2008a, 2009, 2010). The chapter continues with an examination of a selection of Italian textbooks used in Canada (Salvato, 2007, 2008b). The objective is to see if, over the decades, textbook writing has dedicated any attention to the nonverbal aspects that define the Italian language. The publications written up until the early 2000s underwent a number of graphical changes, and, as a latest addition, they introduced videos to accompany their contents. Videos can show gestures and other nonverbal aspects that participate in Italian oral interactions. Yet, in order to be able to appreciate those aspects of communication, teachers and learners need guidelines and training that can help them understand target nonverbal language. These pedagogical directions can contribute to the development of nonverbal competence in language classes. It is to be hoped that future publications take seriously the recommendations coming from the recent and growing number of gesture studies. Particularly, textbook writing needs to include an organized and systematic presentation of gestures and other nonverbal aspects that define a target language. Gestures and nonverbal behavior can change the

122

Chapter Three

traditional way of interpreting textbook writing, which still prominently focuses on verbal language. As a way to counteract the limited attention to gestures in the pedagogy of Italian outside Italy, this chapter overviews three studies in which Canadian learners of Italian were invited to interpret the meaning of six Italian gestures of the emblematic type (cf. Salvato, 2011, 2015). The aim of the exercise was to investigate the way learners with various language backgrounds perceive and understand culturally specific gestures. The participants were exposed to material that is not usually part of a language class. They had the opportunity to explore meanings and functions of Italian gestures whose occurrence is common among native speakers. The participants were asked to evaluate their understanding of the gestures, also by relying on background languages, whether verbal or nonverbal. Whenever the task was revealed to be difficult, the participants were also requested to identify the reasons. Without hoping to make language learners become like native speakers, we argue that the development of nonverbal competence can help them deal with the differences that distinguish source and target language in communication. In our studies, we tried to develop nonverbal fluency by asking learners to practice recognition and interpretation skills while considering a selection of Italian gestures scarcely represented in Italian language syllabi in Canada. We believe that this exercise promoted multilingualism development in the classroom (cf. Cook, 1995, 2007; Salvato, 2011, 2015), specifically the idea that language learning is not only about the verbal components of a language. One important aspect investigated over the three studies concerned the role of background languages and cultural knowledge in the understanding of Italian emblematic gestures. Speakers of languages historically close to Italian were expected to be in a favorable position in interpreting the Italian gestures. However, when asked whether that knowledge was significant, the participants did not perceive this to be a determining factor in aiding the interpretation. Not even learners with knowledge of Italian as their mother tongue were as successful as native speakers in Italy would most likely be on the same task. It is probable that the learners were not exposed to Italian emblematic gestures in the same way as native speakers living in Italy are. Integration into the dominant Anglophone culture and its influence on the codification of meaning in ways other than the Italian emblematic gestures (whether verbally or nonverbally) is likely to have played a role in producing such a result (cf. Efron, 1972; Jarvis and Pavlenko, 2008).

Gestures in the Pedagogy of Italian as a Second Language in Canada

123

The studies also included questions that aimed at linking the interpretation of the Italian gestures to monolingualism vs. bilingualism or multilingualism; to competence in the four skills (i.e., listening, reading, speaking, and writing); to length of instruction in, or use of, and recency of exposure to, Italian. Although most participants followed the instructions and provided information about the number of languages that they knew, the sequencing of that learning, and their language competence, these factors did not correlate with a significant correct interpretation of the six gestures. None of the participants in the 2008 and 2009 studies were able to interpret the six gestures correctly or to provide an interpretation, however incorrect, for each gesture. This fact suggests that the nature of emblematic gestures poses specific difficulties, which are not necessarily aided by verbal or nonverbal competence in various languages, nor by how recent the exposure to, length of instruction in, and use of a target language has been. The studies then addressed general ideas or assumptions about Italian gestures, such as whether it is true that Italian is a gesture-rich language; whether gestures make an obvious appearance in Italian language textbooks; whether learners have witnessed gesture occurrences in Italians in Italy and in Canada, in their L1 and in their own families; or in the teaching style of Italian language instructors. The participants responded to these statements by considering their general linguistic and cultural knowledge, whether verbal and nonverbal, whether belonging to their mother tongue or to Italian as their second, third, or additional language, or to any other languages that they knew. As a consequence of repeating the same study three times, we were able to refine our original survey of questions. In 2006, open-ended questions did not always permit a systematic organization of the participants’ responses. For this reason, the 2008 and 2009 surveys addressed specific questions and guided the participants to respond in a more satisfactory way. The remaking of the survey proved to be an important experience for us as it reflected and provided more insights into the rationale and scope of our studies. Overall, the three studies indicate that the interpretation of Italian emblematic gestures is not an easy task for Canadian learners. The experience confirmed the difference between recognition and interpretation of gestures belonging to a different language (cf. Calbris, 1990; Wolfgang and Wolofsky, 1991). The participants were at times sure they had seen the gestures but then they were not able to attribute a meaning to them. They recognized the form of the gestures but they were not able to interpret what they meant. Not even the participants who had been

124

Chapter Three

exposed to the same gestures during the semester were able to recall their meaning. Moreover, the participants’ responses to the influence from languages other than the mother tongue did not provide clear data. Some learners were in agreement in saying that there was an influence; others were not; and others believed that there was an influence but they then indicated the influence from the mother tongue rather than from languages learned after. Furthermore, the participants who were in agreement with the influence from other languages did not relate this influence through clear or sufficient examples, and the participants with an Italian language background did not seem to be facilitated more than others in the interpretation task. In conclusion, this chapter suggests the need to formulate a more multimodal approach to the teaching and learning of Italian in Canada. The gesture interpretation exercise in our studies represented an attempt towards this objective. It challenged our participants because it represented a new task and they had limited or no experience in dealing with target nonverbal behavior. The exercise revealed the difficulty for learners to discuss target gestural meanings and functions in relation to target verbal language. On the other hand, the evaluation of the experience needs to take into account the emblematic nature of the gestures and the little information that was provided about the context in which those gestures could occur. In sum, our studies confirmed that the examination of nonverbal categories of a target language requires observational and analytical skills, which need to be promoted and used more in language classes and should be part of the objectives of textbook writing in future publications.

CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS

4.1. Implications of gestural theory for second language education in Canadian multilingual settings The theme of this book has been the role of gestures in the acquisition and pedagogy of second languages, with particular attention to Italian in multilingual Canada. The purpose of this book is to show the possibilities that gestures offer for language learning to become a richer experience for teachers and learners within an educational setting. This book has discussed the contribution that gestures can make to multilingualism and multimodality. By offering a visual and kinetic representation of meaning, gestures are one language among many and a means to multimodality when combined with verbal language (Müller, Ladewig, Cienki, Fricke, Bressem, McNeill, and Tessendorf, 2013, 2014; Seyfeddinipur and Gullberg, 2014). Multilingualism and multimodality are two important aspects that define modern society and that can make multicompetence (i.e., competence in multiple skills) a feasible objective in today’s pedagogical programs. Multilingual societies, such as the one found in Canada, entail the presence of different linguistic and cultural perspectives. Among other things, communication is inevitably affected by this variety of perspectives. Within educational settings, the interpretation of the cultural differences that distinguish the languages of the world is a valid methodology to explore multilingualism and multimodality. This practice is in line with the recommendations from scholars who claim the need to expand language training towards a wider array of objectives. Exposure to and analysis of nonverbal aspects of a target language is an example of how we can implement a change in this direction. Nonverbal behaviors such as gestures have traditionally received less attention in language education. On the other hand, the examination of the verbal components of a language is no longer sufficient to cater to the needs and characteristics of the participants in today’s language classes. Nowadays students are equipped with very high levels of visual-spatial

126

Chapter Four

understanding because their daily routine relies extensively on computers and other technological means (e.g., iPhones, iPads). These modern tools of communication have changed the learning abilities of younger generations and have made them more ready to interpret images (i.e., visual modality) and to use their hands and fingers (i.e., motor modality) as they browse through computer programs, video clips, Facebook, web pages, etc. The characteristics of communication today make it necessary for educators to pay attention to not only what they teach but also how they deliver contents of learning. Gesture can offer an alternative mode of teaching and learning compared to traditional practices that focus on phonetic and written input, often in isolation from a number of other elements and signs that naturally accompany words. Gesture provides imagery. It triggers a way of thinking that involves images and movements; it includes space and a three-dimensional construction of meaning (cf. Keller and Keller, 1996). Gesture draws people’s attention to bodily movements. Interlocutors not only listen to but also see information conveyed through the lips, the eyes, and the hand gestures that accompany speech. Gesture promotes understanding by scaffolding information (see beats), or while illustrating the content expressed in words (see iconics), or as it grounds verbal information in reality (see deictics). Gesture helps in the acquisition of language abilities. Speakers are not only users of words, but also of hands, bodily postures, facial expressions, etc., which often define the cultural characteristics of a specific community and their way of communicating (see emblems). In order to prepare educators for today’s classroom, this book advocates the need to include gestures and other nonverbal behavior in teacher training programs. As a teaching aid and a strategy, nonverbal behavior has been too often neglected or underrepresented in educational curricula. Lazaraton and Ishihara (2005:539) note that “one prominent teacher education textbook used to teach Second Language Acquisition (Brown, 2000) discusses various modes of nonverbal communication as part of communicative competence, but its application to L2 pedagogy is addressed in only one of the discussion questions in the conclusion of the chapter.” To counteract the typical trends, teacher education programs need to highlight the potential of nonverbal behavior: types and nature of nonverbal behavior and the ways it can be used in language pedagogy. For example, teachers need to know that nonverbal behavior can be culturally specific; it can reinforce or deliver meaning that may not be expressed by verbal language; and it usually functions at a subconscious level in native

Conclusions

127

speakers, but it conveys relevant information in communication. Teacher education programs should stimulate reflection on and analysis of the implications of nonverbal behavior for teaching and learning. Practical examples can be introduced to show that vocabulary teaching and learning may benefit from representational gestures whereas phonetics benefits more typically from showing lip movements. Lazaraton and Ishihara (2005) argue that practices of this kind can reinforce teaching beliefs and change or perfect them. From this standpoint, nonverbal training is bound to narrow the distance between theory and practice in language pedagogy. It can make teachers become more aware of the methodological principles in which they believe and the way they put those principles into practice. In different studies, gesture as a type of nonverbal behavior has been found to reflect, express, and influence people’s thoughts, revealing or stimulating content that verbal language cannot convey by itself or that speakers do not want to say in words. Gesture complements and integrates verbal language (cf. Kendon, 2004; McNeill, 2000, 2005). In dealing with the close connection between speech and gesture, scholars have investigated how gestures contribute to the process of language acquisition. They have found that the association between form and meaning is reinforced through use of gestures, which, by accompanying speech, elaborate on the association and offer a visual and motor representation of meaning (cf. Allen, 1995). Reproduction of gestures has also been proven to be beneficial to language learning. Enactment of gestures and actions in general adds movement to the traditional four skills (i.e., reading, listening, speaking, and writing) practiced in language learning (cf. Tellier, 2008). Yet, as Gullberg (2014:1872) comments, many questions related to gestures and language education are still to be answered “in particular with regard to different kinds of instruction (e.g., focus on form vs. focus on meaning), materials, and domains of language (e.g., lexicon, grammar, pronunciation).” Equally important for the author is the empirical investigation of whether production of L2 gestures favors long-term effects on language learning. The combination of a variety of skills in language education is in line with the theory that explores the advantages of such a practice (e.g., Clark and Paivio, 1991; Cohen and Otterbein, 1992). Studies have demonstrated that performing even the simplest action described by a command (e.g., “open a book”) favors memorization and recall, especially when compared to only reading or hearing the command (see review in Engelkamp and Cohen, 1991). In carrying out a command through a body movement, the stimulus becomes richer. People exposed to multimodality are offered a more complete learning opportunity. By the same token, enacting actions

128

Chapter Four

can also be more beneficial than just observing actions performed by a model, for example the teacher. As they engage in actions, learners touch objects, perceive measurements, experience activities, etc. The benefits are especially relevant in those cases where the verbal code is either lacking or underdeveloped. Body movements, gestures, and actions all work towards reinforcing meaning. They introduce a distinctive element into the input that makes it more noticeable and they emphasize and draw attention to it. Gestures have also been found to help confirm or elaborate verbal language. Inside and outside the language class, the cooperation between gesture and speech creates an opportunity for learners to be exposed to more advanced target language. Learners’ approximations are likely to be reformulated by their interlocutors, who may offer a revised version of the language to its most typical characteristics (see Mori and Hayashi, 2006). Moreover, learners’ gestures can be used to complete turns of speech, to construct anaphora in discourse (cf. Gullberg, 2003), and to create a common frame of reference with interlocutors (cf. Cohen, 1977; Goodwin, 1986; Slama-Cazacu, 1976). Gestures stimulate language processing to the advantage of both speech and gesture (cf. Allen, 1995). They contribute to making learning a bidirectional experience involving at least two people, instead of being a unidirectional experience in which the non-native speaker tries alone to learn to communicate in the target language. The participation of gestures in the different stages of language acquisition makes it possible for the body as well as the mind to be part of the process of learning. This point relates to Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) philosophy, when it supports the role of actions, movement, and therefore gestures in the creation of meaning within a socio-cultural and historical frame. As Vygotsky (1978, 1986) argues, people learn and develop through the performance of actions that are significant to the context in which they operate. Interpersonal and intrapersonal development are derived from this practice, whether we consider first or second language learning, and whether learning takes place in the classroom or not (cf. McCafferty, 2004). Gestures are not a decorative or marginal component of language. They are linguistic in nature and they are tightly linked to speech (cf. McNeill, 1985). The structural characteristics of gestures, the space that they occupy, the bodily parts that they involve, and the functions that they accomplish can all become material for analysis in a language class. From this standpoint, gestures are a product of acquisition. Unlike segmented and linear speech, gesture conveys different pieces of information all at once. Some information may be formulated and also understood better through the visual-spatial characteristics entailed in gestures. See the case

Conclusions

129

of information concerning size, position, and direction (cf. Kendon, 2004). In addition, gestures can provide a context for the words that they accompany. This is the case of deictic gestures occurring with deictic expressions such as “this, that.” Furthermore, gestures allow ideas to be introduced in a communicative act without being the immediate focus of an interaction, which is usually occupied by speech. Besides being a product of acquisition, gestures are a manifestation of the language acquisition process itself. Gestures can inform about the cognitive aspects involved in language learning. It is indeed true that gestures enable the expression of concepts that the speaker cannot verbalize yet. Gestures help language learners solve communicative problems of different kinds, from lexical to grammatical to interactional. Gullberg (2013b) advocates that more attention to the relationship between speech and gesture can advance the understanding of the language acquisition process itself. For example, the analysis of what gestures compensate for, or aid learners perform, can bring more insights into their role in language development. It is too simple a definition to say that gestures are compensatory for speech. The agendas of studies today need to address when and how gestures are used compensatorily. Only in this way can we hope to add something new to the understanding of learners’ acquisitional stages. Gestures assume a very important role in comprehension as well. Gestures have been found to improve listening comprehension and retention rate. In this respect, Sueyoshi and Hardison (2005) find that hand gestures are more visually salient than lip movements to learners of different levels of proficiency. The authors consider the semantic association of gestures with speech and the fact that their duration is longer than lip movements. Linguistic and cultural experiences, as well as proficiency levels, are nonetheless factors that can have an influence on the interpretation of gestures and lip movements. Sueyoshi and Hardison (2005) note that facial clues can be distracting when learners are not yet able to use them as a strategy of comprehension, for example in lower proficiency levels. However, gestures remain one of the most salient aspects that defines teacher’s talk. Teachers’ gestures are pedagogically functional because they capture students’ attention, they provide redundancy, and they engage a variety of senses (cf. Kellerman, 1992). Emphatic presence of gestures in teacher’s talk may be said to work against authenticity of the language, making it not correspond to the characteristics of the language used outside the classroom. To refute the argument, we can consider Lazaraton (2004:111), who points out that

130

Chapter Four

“classroom input is not merely composed of teacher or other learner talk: Classrooms are the locus of embodied practice.” The classroom has the potential to create a framework where participants assume roles and behaviors that pertain to specific contexts of learning. The classroom offers an opportunity for its participants to become acquainted with the target language and they can practice it before dealing with real situations outside the classroom. There are other aspects that make gestures relevant to language education. In the first place, a message including gestures contains reinforced stimuli that provide clearer information. A message formulated by a variety of means caters to students with learning abilities of various kinds (e.g., more visual students vs. more aural students). Lessons that deliver concrete information and provide images are likely to be easier to comprehend and remember, especially in comparison to lessons that remain abstract and lack images (cf. Clark and Paivio, 1991). These points have inspired pedagogical practices that use diagrams, illustrations, or that relate school contents to real-life events or objects. Teaching in these instances is deemed to be more effective and to help learners’ developing skills (cf. Danesi, 2000; Diadori, 1989, 1990; Poggi, 1986). Comprehension of gestures whose forms and meanings have been decided arbitrarily or within specific world communities (e.g., emblematic gestures) can however be a challenge to non-native speakers of a language (cf. Allen, 1995; Wolfgang and Wolofsky, 1991). Introducing language learners to culturally based gestures entails dedicating time to the explanation of a number of aspects, such as register or function of gestures (e.g., Jungheim, 1991, 2006; Salvato, 2011, 2015). In order to avoid misunderstandings, or stereotypical views, analysis of gesture forms, meanings, and functions is needed in contexts where learners live far away from the target speech community and have little opportunity to observe, and possibly use, target gestures and other nonverbal means of communication. Similarly, the examination of target nonverbal behavior works to the benefit of learners who are speakers of different languages and may attribute non-target interpretations to it. The literature on multilingualism discusses the fact that multilinguals exhibit multiple identities and affective styles in their respective languages (e.g., the expression of apology varies across cultures), and their repertoires are subject to cross-linguistic influence (e.g., Cenoz, Hufeisen, and Jessner, 2001; De Angelis and Dewaele, 2011; Grosjean, 1998, 2001; Pavlenko, 2005). When multilingual speakers are exposed to gestures and other nonverbal aspects of a language, interpretation and production are likely

Conclusions

131

influenced by their rich linguistic background (e.g., Brown and Gullberg, 2011). This book deals with the case of multilinguals in Canada to see what impact multiple language knowledge can have on perception of Italian gestures. The book focuses on Italian in multilingual Canadian universities, where language classes and textbooks do not typically introduce types and functions of gestures (see Salvato, 2007, 2008b). As discussed in preceding chapters, pedagogical practices of this kind perpetuate insufficient knowledge of target nonverbal behavior among language learners. This book claims that gestures contribute to the enrichment of educational programs and play a fundamental role in language teaching and learning. Gestures, among other nonverbal means of communication, can stimulate learners’ observational and critical skills towards a linguistic matter that is usually little represented within language programs and, in the case of Italian, is too often stereotyped by the general public and the media. This book maintains that target gestures and nonverbal behavior can make multimodality, on the one hand, and multilingualism, on the other hand, two possible objectives in language classes of Italian in Canada. Gesture also contributes to better assessment practices in language education. The observation of learners’ gestures in their interlanguage (Selinker, 1972) can become a significant parameter of reference in the definition of language proficiency and progress. Instead of minimizing their role in learners’ performance and comprehension, or seeing them simply as a sign of anxiety, gestures can provide clues to the language development process. It is often true that learners’ competence and performance are measured on the verbal code whereas little or no mention is made of learners’ preparation and familiarity with target gestures and nonverbal language in general. This is also the case of learners who are capable of achieving satisfactory levels of proficiency in a target language. Using gestures in the presentation of target speech validates the assessment of both modes, speech and gesture. Gesture becomes part of testing practices. This is also in line with the theory on information processing in cognitive psychology (e.g., Anderson, 1980), which argues that the way mental representations come into place and remain depends on how the information is presented in the first place. Learners can perform better if assessment includes the same conditions that were used at the time when language was first introduced to them. The literature in SLA has frequently claimed that, especially at the early stages of language acquisition, learners tend to focus on the similarities between languages more than on their differences (cf. Ringbom, 2007).

132

Chapter Four

For that matter, learners may consider the differences as irrelevant because their attention is focused on the similarities (see Kellerman, 1995; Ringbom, 2007). Learners may attribute insufficient importance to those components of a language that, however noticeable they may be, are very distinctive from other languages or the languages that they know. Learners’ performance will show as a consequence. For example, learners may not produce enough target gestures, whether we consider conventionalized gestures (e.g., emblems) or conventionalized uses of gestures (e.g., beats). Learners’ gestures may look awkward because the form, frequency, or spatial or velocity characteristics are not target-like. Learners’ gestures may convey concepts that would be expressed verbally rather than gesturally in a target language. Alternatively, learners may use words instead of gestures in the expression of manner, path, or placement (cf. typological differences in gestural expressions discussed in chapter two). Also, learners may use gestures pertaining to their language of origin. All of these possibilities question the validity of the parameters of reference that have been traditionally used to assess language proficiency, particularly when they focus exclusively on verbal language. One can also wonder about the response of native speakers to learners’ non-target gestural characteristics. Personally I am generally puzzled by the way non-native speakers reproduce Italian native speakers’ gesticulation. Hand shapes often look too stiff. Facial expressions may not be appropriate for specific gestures. Sometimes the tempo between gesture and speech is disconnected, which creates incongruency between the two semiotic modes. These few examples all reveal that the non-native speaker lacks gestural competence in Italian. During Italian language classes, I have observed that gestural reproductions are typically reasons for a joke, which continue a stereotypical view on Italian gestures, or for an impasse, which suggests the inability to deal with the matter other than a joke. Class episodes that would require an organized discussion of nonverbal behavior in Italian end up being dismissed or reduced to a moment of comic relief. I believe this trend perpetuates a marginalized role of gestures in Italian language pedagogy. Insufficient gestural competence among language learners concerns not only types of gestures, but also the way gestures are used to formulate meaning in a target language. As discussed in chapter two, speakers of verb-framed languages, such as Italian, typically express manner in gesture because their verbs do not always specify manner, whereas speakers of satellite-framed languages, such as English, can express manner in speech (e.g., Engl. “hopping in”) (cf. Talmy, 1985). They can rely less on gesture as speech enables the expression of fine nuances of manner. Moreover, the

Conclusions

133

semantic features that a verb encodes in a language may influence what features become part of a gestural description in that same language (cf. Kendon, 2004). For example, an arc-like movement may be performed in correspondence with the English verb “to swing” when native speakers of English use this verb. Similarly, gestures expressing motion path typically occur with path verbs in verb-framed languages (It. “scendere”) whereas they characteristically occur with particles in satellite-framed languages (Engl. “to go down”) (cf. Talmy, 1985). Also, the way a language formulates verbal meaning in a sentence, in one clause vs. multiple clauses, can have repercussions on gestural occurrences (cf. Stam, 2006). There can be occurrences of one gesture per clause or a combination of gestures within the same clause (see typological differences in the expression of path in Spanish vs. English). Examination of the right combination of gestures with parts of speech, and use of the correct verbal and nonverbal element for the expression of motion, seem to be of relevance to theoretical linguists rather than to language educators. It is true that communication is not blocked when learners’ gestures occur with the wrong part of speech or when either manner or path of motion are not gesturally marked as they should be, in accordance with the parameters of the language being used. Yet addressing these aspects in language education can introduce a more multimodal approach to language teaching and learning. The way gesture combines or not with verbal information to describe the characteristics of actions and events could be introduced into language classes as material for analysis. Awareness of these linguistic notions would probably help learners shift thinking-for-speaking patterns (cf. Slobin, 1996) from their native language to the target language (cf. Stam, 2006). Besides linguistic constraints, there are then other factors that regulate the occurrence of gestures in language learners. One is the task in which speakers are involved. While explaining, people are likely to produce more gestures than when they are engaged in oral descriptions. Explaining is indeed more challenging a task than description. Another factor is the speaker’s state of being. Gregersen, Olivares-Cuhat, and Storm (2009) observe that beginners of a language are anxious to do well in a target language but they are often too frustrated by their lack of verbal fluency. Gestures in these nervous learners show emotional and linguistic struggle rather than communicative content. Gregersen et al. (2009) propose to train learners to use gestures, whether in a complementary or substitutive way, with and for speech, so that they can rely on a tool that can help them overcome anxiety. Language classes that welcome such a suggestion can make gestures a regular occurrence in the classroom dynamics. In

134

Chapter Four

particular, Gregersen et al. (2009) value gestures that illustrate the content of words. While reinforcing meaning and making communication more effective, illustrators can also promote learners’ successful performance and indirectly enhance their confidence in using a new language (Gregersen et al. 2009). A third factor that can determine gesture occurrence is identity. Some learners may see in gestures an aspect that enables them to identify more closely with the target speech community. Nardotto Peltier and McCafferty (2010) found that proficient learners of Italian start producing target gestures through imitation and later they may even engage in spontaneous uses. This study sheds a different light on gestures. Advanced learners are likely to develop an interest in gestures as a way to resemble the nonverbal characteristics of the target speech community. As Nardotto Peltier and McCafferty (2010) comment, this is often the profile of those students who, after spending time in the target language community and engaging in conversations with native speakers, realize the value of nonverbal behavior in communication. They naturally develop an interest in gesture and nonverbal behavior and want to learn characteristics and uses. Contrary to common assumptions, learners do not always transfer gesture patterns from their first language to the target language. As they become more proficient, learners may appreciate target gestures and be willing to use them in a target-like fashion. This point is significant in relation to the recent work by Brown (2010), who found that crosslinguistic influences manifested in gesture patterns can occur in a variety of directions. Not only does a developed L1 influence a developing L2, but presence of a developing L2 may cause an influence on the L1, even at relatively low proficiency levels. In examining Japanese monolinguals and Japanese speakers with knowledge of English, Brown (2010) says that monolingual Japanese speakers significantly differ from native Japanese speakers with knowledge of English in use of gesture viewpoint. In both their L1 and L2, Japanese speakers with knowledge of English resemble more closely monolingual English speakers. As Brown (2010:128) comments: “this interaction was more evident in L1 Japanese production than in L2 English production […] there appears to be an effect of the L2 on the L1 in gesture viewpoint.” Unlike Nardotto Peltier and McCafferty (2010), Brown (2010) argues that residence in the target language community does not account for the difference. The native Japanese speakers with knowledge of English resident in the U.S.A. patterned similarly to those resident in Japan. This finding seems to indicate that differences in gesture viewpoint are not necessarily the result of cultural

Conclusions

135

exposure. Further studies examining a variety of language combinations, or knowledge of particular languages, and different proficiency levels, or periods of residence in the target community, are needed to provide grounds to this implication (cf. Brown, 2010). The considerations made so far are evidence of the many facets involved in gesture studies and language acquisition. Gesture, and more generally multimodality, can help redefine bilingualism (cf. Gullberg, 2013a) and multilingualism (e.g., Cenoz, 2009; Safont Jordà and Portolés Falomir, 2015), not only to benefit scholarship but also the world of today. As we can easily observe, monolingualism is gradually disappearing in society. Governments and educational institutions cannot ignore the fact that people are likely exposed to more than one language in their life time, and that this fact has inevitable social, psychological, and cultural repercussions for everyone. We can, for example, consider the impact that nonverbal behavior may have during a meeting among speakers of different languages. Verbally speaking, convenors can agree to use English as lingua franca. On the other hand, we can wonder what effects languagespecific behavioral patterns can produce on the outcomes of the meeting in the absence of an equally accepted lingua franca of the nonverbal type. The observation of gesture patterns in users of different languages offers a unique opportunity for scholars and educators to understand better the interaction of languages in the multilingual mind. Some very recent studies have confirmed that bilinguals and multilinguals show unique linguistic profiles from a verbal and gestural standpoint (cf. Alferink and Gullberg, 2014; Brown and Gullberg, 2013; Pavlenko, 2011). It is our hope that these recent efforts to describe and explain language development in speakers of different languages will promote changes in educational practices, especially in settings where the characteristics that define multilinguals, both in their verbal and nonverbal behavior, are bound to impact the dynamics of language classes. In Canada, for example, language classes are typically multilingual and multicultural. Canadian ESL classes, among other types of classes, are composed of members of different cultures, each with a distinctive perception of gestures in oral communication. The complexity of the language backgrounds in Canada makes us pose the question of how to use nonverbal behavior in multicultural classes, and how to interpret the nonverbal behavior of the participants in those classes. One of the suggestions deriving from gesture studies in SLA is the need to re-evaluate class activities, in particular those that separate the verbal from the nonverbal code of communication. For example, audioonly activities or dictation exercises make the visual channel completely

136

Chapter Four

absent to learners. While listening, learners are deprived of the normal range of means available in real communication, including the visual means. It is recommendable to organize class activities that engage learners’ different abilities. For example, while watching videos, learners can associate sounds with images. The combination of aural and visual input is likely to facilitate better understanding. Alternatively, the volume of videos showing native speakers interacting with other people can be turned down so that students are put in the right condition to focus on target nonverbal behavior without the distraction of sounds. Another activity to be promoted in class is role-playing or drama. While engaging in the verbal and nonverbal code of communication, students try out the combination between gestures and speech in target language situations. Role-playing enables the experience of embodying the target language rather than merely observing it (cf. Vygotsky, 1986). Moreover, a teacher may organize a video recording of role-playing activities in order to facilitate a follow-up discussion with his or her students. The analysis of gestures and other nonverbal aspects occurring during the activities can benefit language learning (cf. Haught and McCafferty, 2008). Class activities that tap into different skills and means of communication are revealed to be a more complete learning experience for language learners. They promote awareness of the characteristics that define a target language. In line with these recommendations, chapter three in this book examines three studies with multilingual learners of Italian in Canadian university classes. Six Italian emblematic gestures were used to collect interpretations from learners with varied language backgrounds. Although the experiences revealed some difficulty, especially with respect to the complexity of the participants’ language background, and the emblematic nature of the gestures, they enabled the implementation of a multimodal approach to language learning and teaching. Participants were asked to express their interpretation of Italian gestures, in alternation or in combination with the verbal code, and in association with their general knowledge of gestures. They were also asked to comment on whether background language knowledge, in number and in type, influenced the interpretation of the Italian gestures (cf. Salvato, 2011, 2015). The novelty of the exercise was apparent. Italian language classes in Canada are rarely exposed to the relationship between words and gestures in Italian oral communication (cf. Danesi, 2000; Salvato, 2008a,b). The participants in the three studies were found to lack observational and critical skills when dealing with target nonverbal language. They were unprepared to tackle meanings encoded in Italian gestures and they had difficulty in discussing gestural semantics. As we comment in chapter

Conclusions

137

three, traditional approaches in language education have long favored the analysis of verbal language over nonverbal components of a language to the detriment of learners’ competence in nonverbal skills. We found this to be true also of Italian language textbooks, where the nonverbal characteristics of the Italian language are not sufficiently described or examined. Italian language textbooks typically offer little or no guidelines to language classes, which could be used to discuss the role of nonverbal behavior in Italian oral communication (Salvato, 2007, 2008b). This book therefore claims that it is time for language education to widen the pedagogical horizons so far considered and implement strategies and techniques that can instill new teaching and learning habits. The theoretical background and practical experiences introduced in this book suggest that nonverbal aspects can help language pedagogy advance and respond to the characteristics that define multilingualism and multimodality in modern society. Through gestures and other nonverbal means, we can hope to make learners more effective users of languages and better aware of the potential of nonverbal communication. In order to contribute to the achievement of these objectives, the sections that follow offer two proposals for integration of gestures into the pedagogy of Italian outside Italy, and a final comment. The sections aim to show the scope of gestures in second language pedagogy and make a practical application of theoretical notions to class activities and material.

4.2. A proposal for inclusion of gestures in Italian textbooks in Canada10 Generally speaking, cultural assumptions are bound to influence people’s interpretation of gestures in pictures. Gestures acquire different values depending on the ideological correlations that observers make when approaching gestures in pictures. This fact poses methodological difficulties when it is time to organize visual material in language textbooks. Among the challenges, one needs to take into account the parameters that can help make a sound selection of gesture types; the way gesture can integrate verbal language into language textbooks; and the amount of visuals that it is recommendable to include. Salvato (2008b) carried out an analysis of the visual material in twenty-one Italian textbooks in Canada, all pertaining to the decades between the 1980s and early 2000s. The author paid special attention to the way those publications arrange their visual material and the relationship between verbal and nonverbal language, particularly gestures. Salvato’s (2008b) analysis can provide Italian language pedagogy with

138

Chapter Four

useful suggestions towards integrating gestures into the formulation of future language textbooks. To start with, Salvato (2008b) classifies gestures from a semantic point of view. As a guideline for Italian textbooks, gestures can be organized semantically into these three categories: icons, indexes, and symbols (see theory of signs in Peirce, 1931–58). The meaning of iconic gestures lies in the resemblance that a gesture establishes with its referent. Salvato (2008b) finds that Italian textbooks often include the picture of someone eating at a table. The action of eating is an example of iconic gesture. On the other hand, indexical gestures include all occurrences of a finger pointing at somebody or something, while symbolic gestures carry a cultural or a conventional meaning. In this category, Salvato (2008b) puts those gestures that have a socio-cultural meaning typical of the target language community (i.e., emblems). An example in Italian textbooks is the mano a borsa (Engl. “pursed hand”) gesture, which in Italian can mean “what do you want?” or “what are you doing?” Among symbolic gestures, Salvato (2008b) also includes those gestures that introduce a referent by a convention, not only known as such within the Italian community. An example is the action of shaking hands to make the acquaintance of somebody. In evaluating the three categories, Salvato (2008b) points out that symbolic gestures are the ones requiring more attention in language classes. Textbooks need to present information that defines the characteristics of symbolic gestures. This concerns form and bodily parts involved in the performance of those gestures, as well as functions and register, which control their use in communication. As Salvato (2008b) notes, contents of this kind are generally missing in the Italian textbooks that she examined. Besides classifying gestures semantically, Salvato (2008b) considers gestures from a syntactical point of view. The author borrows from Jakobson (1960) the concepts of selection of linguistic signs from the paradigmatic level and combination of those signs on the syntagmatic level. In communication, gestures along with speech are means that pertain to the paradigmatic level of significance, which are then selected and combined on the syntagmatic level. As Jakobson (1960:358, italics as in the original) states, selection and combination are “two basic modes of arrangement used in verbal behavior […] The selection is produced on the base of equivalence, similarity and dissimilarity, synonymity and antonymity, while the combination, the build up of the sequence, is based on contiguity. The poetic function projects the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination.”

Conclusions

139

Salvato (2008b) refers to the concepts of selection and combination of linguistic signs when she examines the way gestures integrate with or substitute for speech in Italian textbooks. If gestures combine with verbal language, they function so as to clarify verbal content, or so as to add new linguistic or cultural meanings to it, or so as to replace verbal language. The three options account for different types of communication. It is indeed true that interaction sometimes happens through verbal language only; other times it occurs by combining speech and gestures; or it takes place by means of gestures only. Salvato (2008b) finds that in the Italian textbooks that she considered, gestures mainly have an integrative function. As the author comments, this is a pedagogically sounded practice because language textbooks need to make their contents as clear as possible to learners. The integrative function of gestures can either reinforce or clarify verbal language, or it can add some linguistic and cultural dimension to verbal language introduced with gestures. In Italian textbooks, an example of integrative visual material is the one showing daily routines. Pictures of people waking up, brushing teeth, and getting dressed clarify the verbal language that describes those actions. If together with verbal language gestures introduce some more information, they can be classified as integrative of the complementary type. Salvato (2008b) proposes as an example the type of visuals that show Italians drinking coffee. The gesture of drinking coffee is depicted through the action of holding the handle of an espresso cup with index and thumb fingers of the same hand. The gesture involved in drinking coffee from a small cup is different from the gesture involved in drinking, for example, American coffee from a regular mug. This difference deserves some attention as it complements cultural information. The fact that an espresso cup is used to serve Italian coffee adds content to the verbal language under examination (i.e., Italians drinking coffee). Salvato (2008b) finds that clarifying gestures are the dominant integrative category of gestures in the Italian textbooks that she examined. This is also an important insight for the conceptualization of language textbooks and textbook writing. Visual material should be of the clarifying type especially. Integrative gestures of the complementary and substitutive type, instead, presuppose a greater effort in understanding the verbal and cultural implications that justify their occurrence. In language textbooks, complementary and substitutive gestures may require the intervention of the teacher, who can help students integrate the information necessary for the understanding of those gestures. Alternatively, textbooks need to provide the contents that can explain challenging gestures.

140

Chapter Four

The fact that gestures and verbal language integrate one another in the visual material of language textbooks introduces the concept of collocation. Gestures collocate with respect to verbal language, and vice versa. As Halliday (2004:11) states, “collocation is the tendency of words to keep company with each other […] Collocation is a purely lexical relationship; that is, it is an association between one word and another […] It can be defined quantitatively as the degree to which the probability of a word y occurring is increased by the presence of another word x.” In studying how gestures collocate with respect to verbal language, Salvato (2008b) finds that there is a preference for showing gestures before words rather than words before gestures, especially in the most recent publications that she examined. If this is an indication that gestures are becoming more and more obvious components in language textbooks, Salvato (2008b) wonders whether language classes draw enough attention to the sequence “gesture first words after.” By engaging in interpretation exercises that discuss the characteristics of visual material in textbooks, language classes are given another opportunity to embrace a more multimodal approach to language teaching and learning. Salvato (2008b) then interprets gestures as parts of speech. That is, gestures can be viewed to assume the role of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. She examines what parts of speech gestures either integrate or substitute the most in the textbooks that she considered. The author selects five main categories: pronouns, nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. Among pronouns, Salvato (2008b) includes personal, possessive, indefinite, demonstrative, and interrogative pronouns. Within nouns, the author counts first names and common nouns. Any types of verbs and adjectives are accounted for in the respective categories. With adverbs, both adverbs and adverbial locutions are taken into consideration. Salvato (2008b) finds that the parts of speech most represented through gestures are nouns and verbs. Pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs make up a much smaller percentage. This suggests that nouns and verbs are not only the main parts of discourse taught, especially at lower levels of proficiency, but also that they are more easily represented in a visual form. As far as pronouns are concerned, it is common to find a visual representation of them in publications for beginners. As Salvato (2008b) comments, it is very important for that level of proficiency to dedicate a great deal of attention to the distinction between formality and informality in Italian. The implications of register, and therefore of pronominal uses, in Italian can have a repercussion on the type of gestures to include as visual material. In Italy, greeting practices entail formal and informal gestures. Shaking hands is a gesture of formality that accompanies formal

Conclusions

141

pronouns. A pat on the arm or shoulder or kissing another person on both cheeks is, instead, a gesture of informality that can be shown along with the introduction of informal personal pronouns. As far as adjectives and adverbs are concerned, Salvato (2008b) notes that these categories are less frequently represented in a visual form. However, they also occur less frequently as parts of speech. As Salvato (2008b) remarks, visual representation of adjectives and adverbs may pose some difficulties, especially if they introduce abstract and metaphorical concepts. As an example, the author considers the gestural behavior attributed to someone who is “good looking.” The adjective being abstract can be rendered, and interpreted, in different ways within the same culture or across cultures. One other aspect to consider in the conceptualization of language textbooks is the balance between visuals that show typical exchanges in the target language community and visuals that inform the reader directly of some message. Learning time in the target language can be helped through a visual showing a clock and different hours indicated on the clock. This material does not show any communicative exchanges but its presence is significant to make contents clear. Thanks to the improved graphical characteristics that Italian textbooks have undergone in the last few decades, Salvato (2008b) finds that the more recent publications can afford to present visuals with more precise details. Unlike earlier textbooks, the latest publications rarely show people from a distance or from the rear and colors contribute to a more vivid presentation of contents. In general, publications need to pay attention to the impact that visual material can have on learning. On the one hand, pictures, colors, and highlighted sections are meant to draw the attention of the reader. On the other hand, visuals in textbooks can be distracting. Too many colors, diagrams, etc. can overcrowd the page and limit the learner’s observation capacities. Striking the right amount and quality of visual material is key to textbook writing today. Language textbooks can be a useful tool to promote multimodality in language classes. Yet the value of visual material can be appreciated if educators and classes are trained to explore the different levels of significance in those visual resources. This aspect has not yet been addressed systematically in language education, leaving teachers and learners with too few guidelines to implement a more gestural, or a more visual, or a more multimodal approach to their teaching and learning experience. Textbook writing needs to introduce activities that direct the attention of a language class to the nonverbal behavior in

142

Chapter Four

visual material. For example, textbooks can include questions as general as “Describe the gesture(s) in this picture,” or as specific as “Is the gesture in the picture found in your mother tongue? If so, when?” Questions can be formulated as open-ended or through multiple-choice answers. We believe that the organization of visual material in language textbooks requires due attention in the evaluation of options. This process can be quite challenging but it can contribute to making multimodality a possible objective in language pedagogy.

4.3. A proposal for integration of gestures into Italian classes in Canada11 Combining gestures with speech or using gestures in place of speech are two different approaches to integrating gestures into language classes. The form of gestures may pose some challenge to the participants of a language class. There are gestures that have an arbitrary form whereas others have an iconic form. The former are usually more difficult to interpret as the movement that they perform does not necessarily describe the meaning of the gesture. For these gestures, it seems even more important to provide not only the meaning but also the exact characteristics of the gestures (i.e., bodily parts involved, direction and speed of movement). An example from Italian is the gesture that conveys the meaning of “satisfaction” when things are going well. This is done by joining and rubbing two hands repeatedly together (Diadori, 1990). The movement does not explain the reason why the gesture assumes the meaning that it does within the community of Italian speakers. The association of gesture and meaning has been established arbitrarily. Iconic gestures, on the other hand, are more straightforward in relating form to meaning. An Italian example is the gesture performed by a hand beating against the stomach as if performing a cutting movement to convey the meaning of “dislike, disapproval” (It. Mi sta qui, Engl. “I cannot stand him, her, it,” see Diadori, 1990). This gesture establishes an analogy in form and in meaning with the gesture that we do when unable to digest well: we indicate that food is still at the stomach level. More gesture types can clarify the difference between iconicity and arbitrariness. Among the gestures used by hearing people in Italy, the raising of the little finger offers an example of iconicity. Italians often indicate that someone is “thin, slim” by showing the little finger while the rest of the fingers of the same hand close in a fist (Magno Caldognetto and Poggi, 1997). The physical characteristics of the little finger are extended

Conclusions

143

to the description of a person’s body through a process of analogy. Arbitrary gestures do not create this visual correlation with their referent. They result from the evolution of signs towards more abstract and stylized forms. The Italian gesture indicating the greeting “ciao,” which involves the repeated opening and closing of one hand in a fist, is not justified by a process of analogy between the gesture and its meaning. Italian sign language (LIS) too provides a case of iconicity vs. arbitrariness. The sign for “certificate” is done by beating the fist of one hand against the palm of the other hand, which is the movement typically done when one is stamping a document (Magno Caldognetto and Poggi, 1997). This is a case of iconicity. On the other side, the hand signs that indicate family members assume an arbitrary form. The sign for nonno (Engl. “grandfather”), for example, involves touching the chin with the knuckle of one hand while index and middle fingers of the same hand form a V and the rest of the fingers close in a fist (Radutzky, 1987). Besides the concepts of iconicity and arbitrariness in gestures, language pedagogy needs to account for gesture categories and functions. Emblematic gestures, for example, can be used alone without words or else in combination with words. They convey lexical meaning and their meaning is often culturally determined (see Ekman and Friesen, 1969; Hanna, 1996). When occurring with speech, emblems are richly communicative since two codes, the verbal and the nonverbal, are used to convey meaning. Face-to-face interaction in Italy sometimes happens without speech but simply through an exchange of emblematic gestures. Here is one example: Ciao! – a hand opening and closing in a fist – Ne ho fin qui… – a hand facing downwards and passing across the forehead from left to right as if it were following a line – Ti chiamo… – the thumb and little finger of one hand sticking out while held close to the mouth and ear of the speaker to reproduce the action of calling somebody on the phone – Più tardi… – the index finger rotating in the air – Ci vediamo! – a hand waving (Engl. “Hi, I have had enough! I’ll call you later, bye”). In this interaction, people talk through gestures not speech. Emblems can contribute to the emotive and poetic functions of a message (Jakobson, 1960). The former depends on what emotion the speaker deliberatively communicates; the latter provides information about the message being communicated. Some Italian emblems serve to accomplish both functions. The index finger pointing against and rotating on one’s cheek conveys the meaning of “approval,” especially when food is concerned (Diadori, 1990). Stroking one’s chin with the thumb and the index finger of the same hand can indicate “boredom” (Diadori, 1990). Opening and closing a pursed hand can mean “fear” (Diadori, 1990) and

144

Chapter Four

“crowded place” (Diadori, 1990). This latter gesture offers an example of gestural homonymy since the same bodily movement can assume two different meanings in Italian. On many occasions, emblems serve as a membership sign. This is the case of emblems used by rock bands and their fans, or by political groups (e.g., the Roman salute used by Hitler and his followers). An emblem can become popular because a famous person has used it or uses it (e.g., the Fonz’s “thumb up” in the popular T.V. series Happy Days). Some emblems constantly occur on specific occasions. For example, the V sign done with the index and middle fingers of one hand is used by sport competitors to mean “victory.” The association of emblems with specific verbal expressions is another reason for emblems to occur. The Italian gesture mano a borsa (Engl. “pursed hand”) with a questioning and severe facial expression seem to combine automatically with the expression Cosa vuoi?, which one asks when annoyed: “What do you want?” And there are emblematic gestures typically used by professionals, such as fire brigades, brokers, performers, etc. (Diadori, 1989). However codified the meaning of gestures within a community of speakers is, gestures can change and transform with time (variazione diacronica, Engl. “variation through time,” in Berruto, 1993a, 1993b). I have noticed that in Italy the Italian gesture that is done with a hand beating repeatedly its inner side against the stomach while the palm is facing down, which is used to convey the meaning of “hunger” or “I am hungry,” may compete with the gesture that reproduces the action of one hand picking up food and bringing it to one’s mouth. Two gestures coexisting and sharing the same meaning may suggest that a change is in the process of occurring, for example that one gesture is progressively disappearing as the other is gaining ground. Similarly, gestures vary across space (It. variazione diatopica). As Archer (1997) argues, gestural categories of meaning are not universal. Not all cultures have a gesture indicating “crazy person,” or “beautiful woman,” or “obscene contents,” etc. Alternatively, when a gestural category does exist in a culture, it can assume a form distinct from the same gesture in other cultures. In Italy, some regional gestures have spread to the national territory, at least as passive competence, whereas others have remained well known only in certain areas of Italy (see Neapolitan gestures in de Jorio, 1979). Evidence of gesture use in Italy began already in ancient times but it concerns specific areas and their dialects. For example, the gesture known as “horizontal horns,” which is a sign of threat or bad luck, appears in the wall paintings of Pompeii, in the first century A.D. The gesture known as “vertical horns,” which is a sign indicating

Conclusions

145

protection, is even older, 520 B.C., and is found in the Etruscan frescoes of Tarquinia (Diadori, 1992a; Morris et al. 1979). The South is traditionally said to be the area of Italy that offers many examples of gestures. Collett and Contarello (1987) found that in the South of Italy there is a wider range of gestures to indicate an affirmative and negative answer. This is a consequence of Greek colonization, which brought the “dip-toss” system: a forward inclination of the head indicates “yes” and a backward inclination of the head indicates “no.” The style of performance of Italian actors provides another case in point. Totò (from Naples), one of the major actors in Italy, was a great user of gestures, so much that some of his gestures now identify the actor himself (see Poggi, 1987). Other actors who use gestures extensively are the late Massimo Troisi from Naples, Carlo Verdone and Christian De Sica from Rome, and Roberto Benigni from Tuscany. Actors from the North (e.g., Stefano Accorsi from Bologna, Alessio Boni from Bergamo) may use fewer gestures than actors from the South or Centre of Italy. Diadori (1992b) found that in a selection of Italian movies, two with actors from the North (e.g., Ho fatto splash, 1980, by M. Nichetti; Passione d’amore, 1981, by E. Scola) show no emblematic gestures at all compared to movies with actors from the South or Centre (e.g., Non ci resta che piangere, 1984, with M. Troisi and R. Benigni; Borotalco, 1980, by C. Verdone). Regional gestures in Italy can be viewed as forming the concept of italiano regionale. The regional origin of Italians is generally recognizable from their use of Italian phonetics12 or of dialectal expressions (Zolli, 1986), but a marked use of gestures also can be indicative of a Southern origin rather than of a Northern origin. Diadori (1989) points out that extensive use of gestures can equally indicate poor education or lower social class. When a distinction is made from a socio-cultural point of view, Italian verbal language takes the name of italiano popolare (see Berruto, 1993a, 1993b; Cortelazzo, 2000). This indicates the variety spoken by lower social classes and by people with lower levels of education. A marked use of gestures can be said to form part of the same concept. There are also gestures that one can find across the national territory. These can be included in the concept of italiano medio (Sabatini, 1985), which is the variety of verbal language mostly used by the Italians today. One often quoted Italian gesture is the mano a borsa (Engl. “pursed hand”), used to emphasize a question such as “what do you want?” (cf. Ricci Bitti, 1992). The mano a borsa gesture can probably be seen as an example of italiano medio from a nonverbal point of view.

146

Chapter Four

There are then gestures borrowed from foreign languages and cultures (Diadori, 1992a). The V sign, which indicates “victory,” has been successful in Italy since Churchill used it during the Second World War. Typically youngsters are the first receptors and users of foreign acquisitions, both of the verbal and nonverbal language (for Italian, see Zolli, 1991). The Internet, commercials, cinema, etc. contribute to the spread of foreign acquisitions. An example that comes to mind is the so-called “high five” gesture often seen in North America when people express congratulations, happiness, or greetings in an informal way. The gesture consists of a clap of the open palm with the open palm of another person. In Italy, this gesture has become quite common, especially in sport competitions. Another example is the “air quotes” gesture, which can also be observed in North America when people want to draw attention to an expression in their discourse. The gesture consists of both hands held shoulder-width apart and at the eye level of the speakers. The index and the middle fingers on each hand form a V sign and flex at the beginning and end of the phrase being quoted. In my opinion, the “air quotes” gesture is a successful gesture as it can become part of the gestural behavior of non-native speakers of English who live in North America. I also observed numerous occurrences of this gesture at a recent academic conference on Applied Linguistics, where convenors hailing from different parts of the world systematically used it to emphasize a concept in their presentations. Besides variations across time and space, Italian gestures vary in accordance with register (variazioni diafasiche). Diadori (1990) classifies gestures by considering the formality or informality of their occurrence. For example, the so-called baciamano (Engl. “a kiss on the back of another person’s hand”) is a very formal gesture usually done by a man to a woman (Diadori, 1990). When on an official visit, Barbara Bush kissed Denis Thatcher on the back of his hand, Italian media were particularly impressed with the gesture as in Italy a woman would not typically perform this gesture (Diadori, 1990). Similarly, vulgar gestures or other gestures may not be appropriate to all situations and their participants. Consider the “drink” gesture, which shows the action of drinking. It can mean “I want to drink” but also “let’s have a drink” depending on the situation. Socio-cultural rules limit the occurrence of this gesture. At a meeting among professionals, the drink gesture is less likely to be seen than in more informal settings. Gesture occurrence may also correlate with factors such as age, gender, and social role (variazioni diastratiche). In discussing the variability of gestures across different age or social groups, Archer (1997:88) points out that “in culturally diverse societies, there may also be what could be called

Conclusions

147

‘dialectal’ gestures.” As an example, the author considers the city of Los Angeles where a gang member may recognize a large number of gestures symbolizing different gang names. As far as gender variability is concerned, Archer (1997) finds that gender differences do not concern gestural knowledge but gestural permissibility, that is, women are often more embarrassed to admit knowledge of gestures that have obscene or wicked meanings, and to perform them (cf. Magno Caldognetto and Poggi, 1997). With a focus on Italian, Poggi and Magno Caldognetto (1997) make a distinction between gestures used mainly by children or by adults with children, and gestures used by adults and by adults with other adults. The gesture known as Marameo!, which serves to tease someone, is done with the thumb pointing on the nose, the rest of the fingers of the same hand producing a fan-like movement. This gesture is usually performed among children or between adults and children. As for variation of gestures in accordance with means of communication (variazioni diamesiche), faceto-face interaction and movies show gestures by providing a direct and authentic representation, whereas literature and written texts need to use words to describe gestures, transposing gesture forms and meanings from the visual to the written code (cf. Diadori, 1990; Kellerman, 2001). In this discussion, it is also interesting to note the analogy between the interjections of the Italian verbal language and the so-called holophrastic gestures (Poggi, 1983, 1986). Unlike words, interjections convey a communicative act by themselves, that is, in a holophrastic way. Gestures may also convey meaning by themselves or else in combination with other gestures. Some Italian emblems can be presented as gestures of the holophrastic type. One example is the gesture made with the index finger and the thumb of the same hand coming together in a ring and moving to the outer side as if pulling a thread. This gesture means “perfect” (Diadori, 1990). Alternatively, some gestures become clear only when accompanied by other gestures or by specific facial expressions. Ricci Bitti (1992) explains the difference in meaning between the mano a borsa gesture with a questioning and severe facial expression vs. the mano a borsa gesture with a skeptical or sarcastic facial expression. The former serves to emphasize a question whereas the latter expresses skepticism or sarcasm. The correct interpretation of this minimal pair requires the observation of the facial expression accompanying the “pursed hand” gesture. Like interjections, gestures may originate from something else. Interjections can derive from some other words and gestures from other gestures. The Italian interjection già clearly originates from the adverb già

148

Chapter Four

(Engl. “already”). The index fingers tapping repeatedly together convey the meaning of “two,” things or people, because of the number of fingers involved in the gesture. If it is the inner sides of the index fingers that tap against one another, the meaning of the gesture is “to get along with.” If it is the tips of the fingers that tap against one another, then the meaning of the gesture is “to not get along with” (Diadori, 1990). As for function, Poggi (1983) classifies interjections into informative, that is, knowing or not knowing (e.g., Italian Boh!); interrogative (e.g., Italian Eh?); requesting something to happen (e.g., Italian Beh?); or expressing a wish, or greetings, or imprecations (e.g., Italian Ehi!). To perform these functions, Poggi (1983) notes, interjections do not need to associate with verbal elements. Neither do holophrastic gestures. The informative holophrastic gesture of the index finger sliding under one’s chin, which in Italian means “I don’t care,” is one such example (Diadori, 1990). An interrogative holophrastic gesture that involves both hands in prayer position moving up and down at the chest level while the eyes look up means “what do I do now?” (Diadori, 1990). A holophrastic gesture requesting something to happen is the hand opening and closing repeatedly in a purse to mean “come to the point of your speech” (Diadori, 1900). A man raising his hat and bowing his head while standing in front of a woman or a person who is professionally superior in rank conveys the meaning of “greetings” (Diadori, 1990). Like interjections, gestures are also more instinctive and immediate (Poggi, 1983). Yet neither interjections nor holophrastic gestures can create as many combinations of meaning as articulated verbal language can. Moreover, interjections and holophrastic gestures assume a meaning at the very moment when they are pronounced or performed. It does not make any sense to say the Italian interjection mavalà to express disbelief in the past, nor does it if we used the mano a borsa gesture. Instead, it is possible to express disbelief in the past with words: Non ho creduto alle sue parole (Engl. “I did not believe his or her words”). Without context, the meaning of holophrastic gestures and interjections cannot be recuperated. This is the case of a pointing index finger taken away from the context of its occurrence. The same applies to any kind of interjection, but not to verbal language. Deictic pronouns, for example, are a good device to connect some verbal information to something already said or to what one is going to say (e.g., Questa situazione non mi piace, Engl. “This situation I don’t like”; Questo che ti sto per dire ti divertirà, Engl. “What I am going to tell you will make you smile”).

Conclusions

149

4.4. A final comment This book has addressed a number of topics that can help make gestures an integral part of the experience of learning a second language. Gestures offer linguistic and cultural information that can expand the language syllabus towards a more multimodal interpretation of what and how to learn about another language. Among the benefits of including gestures in the language curriculum, this book has discussed enhanced linguistic and cultural outcomes; better understanding of speech; recall and memorization advantages; facilitation of the language learning process; thorough evaluation of language competence; and development of multilingual and multimodal skills that meet the characteristics of communication in modern society. Structural features of gestures, gesture functions and types, contexts of gesture use, variation of gesture, and combinations of gesture and speech are all aspects that can inform and guide educators in the integration of gesture into language pedagogy. Only by including gestures in the syllabus can educators grant a complementary, rather than marginal, role to them in language education. This is especially needed in the pedagogy of those languages whose community of native speakers is not geographically closely located, and therefore less easily observable in their behavior in communication. In this book, we have considered the case of Italian in Canada. Canadian learners of Italian have limited or no opportunities to observe gestures and other nonverbal behaviors that contribute to communication in this language. The three studies that we carried out with multilingual Canadian learners of Italian brought forth evidence that the dominant Anglophone culture and non-standard varieties of Italian influence the interpretation of the role of Italian gestures in communication. This not only concerns the decodification of gestural meaning but also the linguistic and cultural reasons for gesture occurrence in communication. In this book we argue that it is high time that language learners developed nonverbal competence so that they can recognize, understand correctly, and make appropriate responses to the nonverbal elements that participate in communication in a target language. The main objective of this book is to contrast the traditional practices in language pedagogy, which typically prioritize the formal aspects of a language from a verbal point of view and leave nonverbal language uncommented on or underrepresented in the curriculum. Traditional perspectives in language pedagogy do not meet the characteristics of society today, particularly modern means and codes of communication.

150

Chapter Four

This book focuses on gestures also to grant them a position within the concept of multilingualism. In developing nonverbal competence, it is important for language pedagogy to consider the variety of backgrounds that form multilingual and multicultural classrooms such as those found in Canadian universities. A variety of interpretations of what it means to communicate nonverbally, for example through the use of gestures, are likely to affect multicultural classrooms and their trajectory of learning. Language pedagogy today is called on to tackle a challenge of this nature. In order for language classes to be encouraged to encompass the nonverbal dimensions of a language, this book makes a number of proposals and formulates activities, textbook material, and curriculum material that can promote the understanding of target gestures, their uses, and their functions within a community of speakers. This book advocates that the observation and critical analysis of target gestures can further awareness of this code of communication, and improve interaction among members of different cultures. Finally, it is our hope that the arguments discussed in this book, particularly the significant communicative and cognitive functions of gestures within and across languages, will combat the view of gestures according to stereotypical ideas or as a mere decorative component of language.

NOTES 1

Verb-framed languages.

2

In 2011, www.statcan.gc.ca indicated that more than 33 million people formed the population of Canada. In February 2015, the population was more than 35 million people.

3

The characteristics of the Italian gestures used by Salvato (2011, 2015) are discussed in chapter three of this book.

4

TSG100=Toronto St. George campus ITA 100; TSG101=Toronto St. George campus ITA 101; TSG152=Toronto St. George campus ITA 152; TM100=Toronto Mississauga campus ITA 100; M100=McMaster University ITA 100.

5 100=absolute beginners; 101=beginners with Italian family background; 152=beginners with four-year high-school training in Italian 6

Any inconsistencies in tables 2-5 through 2-7 are due to incomplete answers on the part of the students.

7

Table 2-8 records individual students through a letter and a number, or a number only (e.g., T57, 24). This way of identifying students was adopted during the filing of the data. 8

This section is partly based on Giuliana Salvato, “The Role of Gesture in the Acquisition of Italian as a Second Language” (PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2007). 9

The remaining part of this section is indebted to Giuliana Salvato, “The interpretation of gestures in cross-cultural communication: The case of Italian symbolic gestures in second language education,” in Diversity, Otherness, and Pluralism in Italian Literature, Cinema, Language, and Pedagogy. Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, eds. Filomena Calabrese et al. (Ottawa: Legas, 2009), 309– 24.

10

This section is partly indebted to Giuliana Salvato, “The representation of gestures in Italian textbooks and workbooks,” Italica 85, no. 1 (2008): 1–26. 11 This section is indebted to Giuliana Salvato, “Suggestions as to how to develop nonverbal competence in Italian L2 classes in Canada,” in Italian Outside of Italy. The Situation in Canada, USA and the English-Speaking World, ed. Salvatore Bancheri (Ottawa: Gauvin Press, 2012), 91–106.

152

Notes

12 See the so-called gorgia toscana in Tuscany, where some occlusive consonants are pronounced as fricative in intervocalic position, or the so-called raddoppiamento consonantico in Tuscany and in the South of Italy, which involves the lengthening of the consonant at the beginning of a word when the preceding word ends in a vowel.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alferink, Inge, and Marianne Gullberg. “French–Dutch bilinguals do not maintain obligatory semantic distinctions: Evidence from placement verbs.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17, no. 1 (2014): 22– 37. Alibali, Martha W., and Mitchell J. Nathan. “Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understanding: Evidence from an early algebra lesson.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by Ricki Goldman, Roy Pea, Brigid Barron, and Sharon J. Derry, 349–65. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. Allen, Linda Q. “The effects of emblematic gestures on the development and access of mental representations of French expressions.” The Modern Language Journal 79, no. 4 (1995): 521–29. —. “Functions of nonverbal communication in teaching and learning a foreign language.” The French Review 72, no. 3 (1999): 469–80. —. “Nonverbal accommodations in foreign language teacher talk.” Applied Language Learning 11, no. 1 (2000): 155–76. Anderson, John R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1980. Archer, Dane. “Unspoken diversity: Cultural differences in gestures.” Qualitative Sociology 20, no. 1 (1997): 79–105. Argyle, Michael. “Nonverbal communication in human social interaction.” In Non-verbal Communication, edited by Robert A. Hinde, 243–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Armstrong, David F., William C. Stokoe, and Sherman E. Wilcox. Gesture and the Nature of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Asher, James J. “The strategy of the Total Physical Response: An application to learning Russian.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 3 (1965): 292–99. Bailey, Kathleen M. “Teaching in a second language: The communicative competence of non-native speaking assistants.” Dissertation Abstracts International 43 (1982): 3305A. Balboni, Paolo E. Parole comuni culture diverse. Guida alla comunicazione interculturale. Venezia: Marsilio, 2003.

154

Bibliography

Balì, Maria, and Luciana Ziglio. Espresso 3. Corso di italiano. Firenze: Alma Edizioni, 2003. Bancroft, W. Jane. “Non-verbal communication: How important is it for the language teacher?” In Teaching and Learning Languages, edited by Anthony Mollica, 89–109. Welland, ON: Soleil, 1998. Bates, Elizabeth, Inge Bretherton, Lynn Snyder, Cecilia Shore, and Virginia Volterra. “Vocal and gestural symbols at 13 months.” MerrillPalmer Quarterly 26 (1980): 407–23. Beattie, Geoffrey, and Heather Shovelton. “The role of iconic gesture in semantic communication and its theoretical and practical implications.” In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill, edited by Susan D. Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena T. Levy, 221–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Berruto, Gaetano. “La varietà del repertorio.” In Introduzione all’italiano contemporaneo. La variazione e gli usi, edited by Alberto A. Sobrero, 3–33. Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1993a. —. “Varietà diamesiche, diastratiche, diafasiche.” In Introduzione all’italiano contemporaneo. La variazione e gli usi, edited by Alberto A. Sobrero, 37–87. Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1993b. Bettoni, Camilla. “Italiano fuori d’Italia.” In Introduzione all’italiano contemporaneo. La variazione e gli usi, edited by Alberto A. Sobrero, 411–60. Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1993. Bialystok, Ellen. Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second-Language Use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. Birdwhistell, Ray. Kinesics and Context: Essay on Body Motion Communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970. Bley-Vroman, Robert. “The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity.” Language Learning 33 (1983): 1–17. Branciforte, Suzanne, and Anna Grassi. Parliamo italiano! A communicative approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998. Bräuer, Gerd. Body and Language: Intercultural Learning Through Drama. Westport: Ablex Publishing, 2002. Breiner-Sanders, Karen E., Pardee Lowe, John Miles, and Elvira Swender. “ACTFL proficiency guidelines—Speaking.” Rev. ed. 1999. Foreign Language Annals 33, no. 1 (2000): 13–18. Brown, Amanda. “Gesture viewpoint in Japanese and English: Crosslinguistic interactions between two languages in one speaker.” Gesture 8 (2008): 256–76. —. “Gesture viewpoint in Japanese and English: Cross-linguistic interactions between two languages in one speaker.” In Gestures in

Looking Beyond Words

155

Language Development, edited by Marianne Gullberg and Kees de Bot, 113–34. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2010. Brown, Amanda, and Marianne Gullberg. “Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture: A study of Japanese speakers of English.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30 (2008): 225–51. Brown, Amanda, and Marianne Gullberg. “Changes in encoding of path of motion in a first language during acquisition of a second language.” Cognitive Linguistics 21, no. 2 (2010): 263–86. Brown, Amanda, and Marianne Gullberg. “Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in event conceptualization? The expressions of Path among Japanese learners of English.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14, no. 1 (2011): 79–94. Brown, Amanda, and Marianne Gullberg. “Multicompetence and native speaker variation in clausal packaging in Japanese.” Second Language Research 28, no. 4 (2012): 415–42. Brown, Amanda, and Marianne Gullberg. “L1–L2 convergence in clausal packaging in Japanese and English.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16, no. 3 (2013): 477–94. Brown, H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2000. Burgoon, Judee K., David B. Buller, Jerold L. Hale, and Mark A. DeTurck. “Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors.” Human Communication Research 10 (1984): 351–78. Butterworth, Brian, and Uri Hadar. “Gesture, speech, and computational stages: A reply to McNeill.” Psychological Review 96 (1989): 168–74. Calbris, Geneviève. The Semiotics of French Gestures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Canadian Ministry of Education. The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1-8. Language. Last updated 2006. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/language18currb .pdf —. The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9-12. English as a Second Language, English Literacy Development. Last updated 2007. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/esl912currb.pdf —. The Ontario Curriculum Grades 11-12. Classical and International Languages. Last updated 2000. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/classiclang1112c urr.pdf

156

Bibliography

Cenoz, Jasone. Towards Multilingual Education: Basque Educational Research from an International Perspective. Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 2009. Cenoz, Jasone, Britta Hufeisen, and Ulrike Jessner, eds. Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2001. Chamberlin-Quinlisk, Carla R. “Understanding nonverbal communication in second language teaching.” In Gesture: Second Language Acquisition and Classroom Research, edited by Steven G. McCafferty and Gale Stam. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008. Chen, Si-Qing. “A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese EFL learners.” Language Learning 40, no. 2 (1990): 155–87. Church, Ruth Breckinridge, Saba Ayman-Nolley, and Shahrzad Mahootian. “The role of gesture in bilingual education: Does gesture enhance learning?” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7 (2004): 303–19. Cicogna, Caterina. Un proverbio al giorno! Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992. Clark, James M., and Allan Paivio. “Dual coding theory and education.” Educational Psychology Review 3, no. 3 (1991): 149–210. Clivio, Gianrenzo P. “The assimilation of English loanwords in ItaloCanadian.” In The Second LACUS Forum, edited by Peter A. Reich, 584–89. Columbia: Hornbeam, 1975. Clyne, Michael, and Paola Cassia. “Trilingualism, immigration and relatedness of languages.” ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 123–124 (1999): 57–74. Cohen, Akiba A. “The communicative functions of hand illustrators.” Journal of Communication 27, no. 4 (1977): 54–63. Cohen, Ronald L., and Nicola Otterbein. “The mnemonic effect of speech gestures: Pantomimic and non-pantomimic gestures compared.” European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 4, no. 2 (1992): 113–39. Collett, Peter, and Alberta Contarello. “Gesti di assenso e di dissenso.” In Comunicazione e gestualità, edited by Pio Enrico Ricci Bitti, 69–85. Milano: Franco Angeli, 1987. Colli, Gian G. “Il corpo che parla: la gestualità e l’italiano fra tradizione teatrale e didattica della lingua.” Italica 81, no. 4 (2004): 536–50. Cook, Vivian. “The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence.” Second Language Research 7, no. 2 (1991): 103–17. —. “Evidence for multi-competence.” Language Learning 42, no. 4 (1992): 557–92.

Looking Beyond Words

157

—. “Multi-competence and the learning of many languages.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 8, no. 2 (1995): 93–98. —. Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2002. Cook, Vivian, ed. Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2003. Cook, Vivian. “The goals of ELT: Reproducing native-speakers or promoting multicompetence among second language users?” In International Handbook of English Language Teaching, edited by Jim Cummins and Chris Davison, 237–48. Boston: Springer, 2007. Cook, Vivian, and Benedetta Bassetti, eds. Language and Bilingual Cognition. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 2011. Cortelazzo, Michele A. Italiano d’oggi. Padova: Esedra Editrice, 2000. Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Dagenais, Diane, Francoise Armand, Nathalie Walsh, and Erica Maraillet. “L’Eveil aux langues et la co-construction de connaissances sur la diversité linguistique.” Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 (2007): 197–219. Danesi, Marcel. “L’interferenza lessicale nell’italiano parlato in Canada (Toronto).” Les Langues Néo-Latines 76 (1982): 163–67. —. Learn Italian. The Fast and Fun Way. Hong Kong: Barron’s Educational Series, 1997. —. Semiotics in Language Education. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000. De Angelis, Gessica. Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 2007. De Angelis, Gessica, and Jean-Marc Dewaele, eds. New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research. Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 2011. De Geer, Boel. Internationally Adopted Children in Communication: A Developmental Study. Lund, Sweden: Reprocentralen, 1992. de Jorio, Andrea. La mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire napoletano. Bologna: Arnaldo Forni, [1832] 1979. De Ruiter, Jan Peter. “The production of gesture and speech.” In Language and Gesture, edited by David McNeill, 284–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Debreslioska, Sandra, Asli Özyürek, Marianne Gullberg, and Pamela Perniss. “Gestural viewpoint signals referent accessibility.” Discourse Processes 50, no. 7 (2013): 431–56.

158

Bibliography

Di Pietro, Robert J. Strategic Interaction: Learning Languages Through Scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Diadori, Pierangela. “Gestualità e insegnamento linguistico.” LEND 3 (1989): 44–59. —. Senza parole. 100 gesti degli italiani. Roma: Bonacci, 1990. —. “La comunicazione non verbale in Italia.” Culturiana 13 (1992a): 18– 20. —. “La gestualità nella nuova commedia all’italiana: uno specchio degli usi comunicativi dell’Italia contemporanea.” Culturiana 14 (1992b): 6–10. Dittman, Allen T. “The body movement-speech rhythm relationship as a cue to speech encoding.” In Studies in Dyadic Communication, edited by Aron W. Siegman and Benjamin Pope, 135–50. New York: Pergamon Press, 1972. Dörnyei, Zoltán, and Mary L. Scott. “Communication strategies in a second language. Definitions and taxonomies.” Language Learning 47 (1997): 173–210. Duff, Patricia A. “Multilingualism in Canadian schools: Myths, realities and possibilities.” Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10, no. 2 (2007): 149–63. Duncan, Starkey D., Jr. “Language, paralanguage, and body motion in the structure of conversation.” In Language and Man: Anthropological Issues, edited by William C. McCormack and Stephen A. Wurm, 239– 67. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1976. Düwell, Henning. “Situations of communication and polycoded messages.” In Essays in Applied Visual Semiotics, edited by James W. Brown and Anthony Mollica, 101–14. Toronto: Humanities Publishing Services, University of Toronto, 1989. Efron, David. Gestures, Race and Culture. The Hague: Mouton, 1941/1972. Ekman, Paul, and Wallace V. Friesen. “The repertoire of nonverbal behaviour: categories, origins, usage and coding.” Semiotica 1 (1969): 49–98. Engelkamp, Johannes, and Ronald L. Cohen. “Current issues in memory of action events.” Psychological Research 53 (1991): 175–82. Faculty of Arts and Science. A Plurality of Voices. Report of the Language Task Force. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2005. Faerch, Claus, and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London/New York: Longman, 1983.

Looking Beyond Words

159

Fakhri, Ahmed. “The use of communication strategies in narrative discourse: A case study of a learner of Moroccan Arabic as a second language.” Language Learning 34, no. 3 (1984): 15–37. Federici, Carla, and Carla Riga. Ciao! Boston: Thomson and Heinle, 2003. Feyereisen, Pierre. “Gestures and speech, interactions and separations: A reply to McNeill.” Psychological Review 94 (1987): 493–98. Frassica, Pietro, and Antonio Carrara. Per modo di dire. Toronto: D.C. Heath, 1981. Freedman, Norbert. “The analysis of movement behaviour during the clinical interview.” In Studies in Dyadic Communication, edited by Aron W. Siegman and Benjamin Pope, 153–75. New York: Pergamon Press, 1972. Gafaranga, Joseph. “Code-switching as a conversational strategy.” In Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication, edited by Peter Auer and Li Wei, 279–313. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007. Galli de’ Paratesi, Nora. Livello soglia per l’insegnamento dell’italiano come lingua straniera. Strasburgo: Consiglio d’Europa, 1981. Galván, José, and Russell N. Campbell. “An examination of the communication strategies of two children in the Culver City Spanish Immersion Program.” In The Acquisition and Use of Spanish and English as First and Second Languages, edited by Roger W. Andersen, 133–50. Washington, DC: Tesol, 1979. Gass, Susan, and Larry Selinker. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001. Genesee, Fred. Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge: Newbury House, 1987. —. “What do we know about bilingual education for majority-language students?” In The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism, edited by Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie, 547–76. London: Blackwell, 2004. Goldin-Meadow, Susan. “Gesture’s role in the learning process.” Theory into Practice 43, no. 4 (2004): 314–21. Goldin-Meadow, Susan, and Jody Saltzman. “The cultural bounds of maternal accommodation: How Chinese and American mothers communicate with deaf and hearing children.” Psychological Science 11, no. 4 (2000): 307–14. Goldin-Meadow, Susan, and Susan M. Wagner. “How our hands help us learn.” Trends in Cognitive Science 9 (2005): 234–41. Goodwin, Charles. “Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation.” Semiotica 62, no. 1/2 (1986): 29–49.

160

Bibliography

Goodwin, Janet. “Teaching pronunciation.” In Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, edited by Marianne Celce-Murcia, 103– 16. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 2001. Graham, Jean Ann, and Michael Argyle. “A cross-cultural study of the communication of extra-verbal meaning by gestures.” International Journal of Psychology 10 (1975): 56–67. Gregersen, Tammy, Gabriela Olivares-Cuhat, and John Storm. “An examination of L1 and L2 gesture use: What role does proficiency play?” The Modern Language Journal 93, no. 2 (2009): 195–208. Grosjean, François. “Another view of bilingualism.” In Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals, edited by Richard J. Harris, 51–62. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1992. —. “Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1 (1998): 131–49. —. “The bilingual's language modes.” In One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing, edited by Janet Nicol, 1–22. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. —. Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Gullberg, Marianne. Gesture as a Communication Strategy in Second Language Discourse. A Study of Learners of French and Swedish. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press, 1998. —. “Communication strategies, gestures, and grammar.” Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère. Numéro spéciale: Eurosla 8 (1999): 61–71. —. “Gestures, referents, and anaphoric linkage in learner varieties.” In Information Structure, Linguistic Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition, edited by Christine Dimroth and Marianne Starren, 311–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Gullberg, Marianne, ed. “Gestures and second language acquisition.” Special issue, International Review of Applied Linguistics 44, no. 2 (2006). Gullberg, Marianne. “Reconstructing verb meaning in a second language: How English speakers of L2 Dutch talk and gesture about placement.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2009a): 222–45. —. “Why gestures are relevant to the bilingual mental lexicon.” In The Bilingual Mental Lexicon: Interdisciplinary Approaches, edited by Aneta Pavlenko, 161–84. Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 2009b. —. “Multilingual multimodality: Communicative difficulties and their solutions in second language use.” In Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, edited by Jürgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron, 137–51. Cambridge: Cambridge

Looking Beyond Words

161

University Press, 2011a. —. “Language-specific encoding of placement events in gestures.” In Event Representation in Language and Cognition, edited by Jürgen Bohnemeyer and Eric Pederson, 166–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011b. —. “Bilingual multimodality in language documentation data.” Language Documentation and Conservation Special Publication 3 (2012): 46–53. —. “Bilingualism and gesture.” In The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism, edited by Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie, 417– 37. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013a. —. “So you think gestures are compensatory? Reflections based on child and adult learner data.” In Language Acquisition and Use in Multilingual Contexts: Theory and Practice, edited by Anna Flyman Mattsson and Catrin Norrby, 39–49. Lund, Sweden: Media-Tryck, 2013b. —. “Gestures and second language acquisition.” In Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, edited by Cornelia Müller, Silva Ladewig, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, David McNeill, and Sedinha Tessendorf, 1868– 75. Vol. 2. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 2014. Gullberg, Marianne, and Steven G. McCafferty. “Introduction to gesture and SLA: Toward an integrated approach.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30 (2008): 133–46. Gullberg, Marianne, and Kenneth Holmqvist. “What speakers do and what addressees look at.” Pragmatics and Cognition 14, no. 1 (2006): 53– 83. Hadar, Uri, and Brian Butterworth. “Iconic gestures, imagery and word retrieval in speech.” Semiotica 115 (1997): 147–72. Halliday, Michael A. K. “Lexicology.” In Lexicology and Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction, edited by M. A. K. Halliday, Wolfgang Teubert, Colin Yallop, and Anna ýermáková, 1–22. London/New York: Continuum, 2004. Hanna, Barbara E. “Defining the emblem.” Semiotica 112, no. 3/4 (1996): 289–358. Haught, John R., and Steven G. McCafferty. “Embodied language performance: Drama and the ZPD in the second language classroom.” In Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages, edited by James P. Lantolf and Matthew E. Poehner, 139–62. Oakville, CT: Equinox Press, 2008. Hofstede, Geert. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill, 1991.

162

Bibliography

Holler, Judith, and Geoffery Beattie. “Pragmatic aspects of representational gestures.” Gesture 3, no. 2 (2003): 127–154. Hornberger, Nancy H. “Continua of bilateracy.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, edited by Angela Creese, Peter Martin, and Nancy H. Hornberger, 275–90. New York: Springer, 2007. Inglis, Margaret. “The communicator style measure applied to nonnative speaking teaching assistants.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 17 (1993): 89–105. Iverson, Jana M., and Susan Goldin-Meadow. “What's communication got to do with it? Gesture in children blind from birth.” Developmental Psychology 33, no. 3 (1997): 453–67. Jaffe, Alexandra. “Minority language movements.” In Bilingualism: A Social Approach, edited by Monica Heller, 50–70. London: Palgrave, 2007. Jakobson, Roman. “Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics.” In Style in Language, edited by Thomas A. Sebeok, 350–77. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960. Jarvis, Scott. “Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon.” Language Learning 50, no. 2 (2000): 245–309. Jarvis, Scott, and Aneta Pavlenko. Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: Routledge, 2008. Jenkins, Susan, and Isabel Parra. “Multiple layers of meaning in an oral proficiency test: the complementary roles of nonverbal, paralinguistic, and verbal behaviours in assessment decisions.” The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003): 90–107. Jessner, Ulrike. Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals. English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Jewitt, Carey. “Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms.” Review of Research in Education 32 (2008): 241–67. Johnson, Robert K., and Merrill Swain, eds. Immersion Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Jungheim, Nicholas O. “A study on the classroom acquisition of gesture in Japan.” Journal of Ryutsu Keizai University 27, no. 1 (1991): 61–8. —. “Learner and native speaker perspectives on a culturally-specific Japanese refusal gesture.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 44, no. 2 (2006): 125–42. Keller, Charles M., and Janet D. Keller. “Imaging in iron, or thought is not inner speech.” In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, edited by John J.

Looking Beyond Words

163

Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson, 115–29. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Kellerman, Eric. “Now you see it, now you don’t.” In Language Transfer in Language Learning, edited by Susan Gass and Larry Selinker, 112– 34. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983. —. “Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere?” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15 (1995): 125–50. —. “New uses for old languages: Cross-linguistic and cross-gestural influence in the narratives of non-native speakers.” In Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, edited by Jasone Cenoz, Britta Hufeisen, and Ulrike Jessner, 170–91. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2001. Kellerman, Eric, and Michael Sharwood Smith, eds. Cross-Linguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press, 1986. Kellerman, Eric, and Anne-Marie Van Hoof. “Manual accents.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 41, no. 3 (2003): 251–69. Kellerman, Susan. “'I see what you mean': The role of kinesic behaviour in listening and implications for foreign and second language learning.” Applied Linguistics 13, no. 3 (1992): 239–58. Kendon, Adam. “Some relationships between body motion and speech.” In Studies in Dyadic Communication, edited by Aron W. Siegman and Benjamin Pope, 177–210. New York: Pergamon Press, 1972. —. “Did gesture have the happiness to escape the curse at the confusion of Babel?” In Nonverbal Behaviour: Perspectives, Applications, Intercultural Insights, edited by Aaron Wolfgang, 75–114. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe, 1984. —. “On gesture: Its complementary relationship with speech.” In Nonverbal Behaviour and Communication, edited by Aron W. Siegman and Stanley Feldstein, 65–97. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987. —. “How gestures can become like words.” In Crosscultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication, edited by Fernando Poyatos, 131–41. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe, 1988. —. “Language and gesture: Unity or duality?” In Language and Gesture, edited by David McNeill, 47–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000a. —. Gesture in Naples and Gesture in Classical Antiquity. A Translation of La mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire napoletano. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2000b.

164

Bibliography

—. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Kita, Sotaro. “How representational gestures help speaking.” In Language and Gesture, edited by David McNeill, 162–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. —. “Cross-cultural variation of speech-accompanying gesture: A review.” Language and Cognitive Processes 24 (2009): 145–67. Kita, Sotaro, and Asli Özyürek. “What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal?: Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking.” Journal of Memory and Language 48 (2003): 16–32. Kita, Sotaro, and Asli Özyürek. “How does spoken language shape iconic gestures?” In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill, edited by Susan D. Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena T. Levy, 67–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Knapp, Mark L., and Judith A. Hall. Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2006. Kress, Gunther. Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge, 2003. Lazaraton, Anne. “Gesture and speech in the vocabulary explanations of one ESL teacher: A microanalytic inquiry.” Language Learning 54, no. 1 (2004): 79–117. Lazaraton, Anne, and Noriko Ishihara. “Understanding second language teacher practice using microanalysis and self-reflection: A collaborative case study.” The Modern Language Journal 89, no. 4 (2005): 530–42. Lazzarino, Graziana, Maria Cristina Peccianti, Janice Aski, and Andrea Dini. Prego! An Invitation to Italian. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Lettieri, Michael, and Raffaella Maiguashca. Adesso! An Introduction to Italian. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 1997. Levelt, Willem J. M. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: Bradford Books/MIT Press, 1989. Magno Caldognetto, Emanuela, and Isabella Poggi. “Conoscenza e uso dei gesti simbolici. Differenze di sesso e di età.” In Mani che parlano. Gesti e psicologia della comunicazione, edited by Isabella Poggi and Emanuela Magno Caldognetto, 85–97. Padova: Unipress, 1997. Marcos, Luis R. “Nonverbal behavior and thought processing.” Archives of General Psychiatry 36 (1979): 940–43. Masur, Elise F. “Gestural development, dual-directional signaling, and the transition to words.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 12 (1983): 93–109.

Looking Beyond Words

165

Maynard, Senko K. Kaiwabunseki [Conversation Analysis]. Tokyo: Kuroshio, 1993. McCafferty, Steven G. “Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech.” Applied Linguistics 19 (1998): 73–96. —. “Gesture and creating zones of proximal development for second language learning.” The Modern Language Journal 86, no. 2 (2002): 192–203. —. “Space for cognition: gesture and second language learning.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14, no. 1 (2004): 148–65. —. “Gesture and the materialization of second language prosody.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 44, no. 2 (2006): 197–209. McCafferty, Steven G., and Marianne Gullberg, eds. “Gesture and SLA: Toward an integrated approach.” Special issue, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30, no. 2 (2008). McCafferty, Steven G., and Gale Stam, eds. Gesture: Second Language Acquisition and Classroom Research. London: Routledge, 2008. McCroskey, James C., Joan M. Fayer, Virginia P. Richmond, Aino Sallinen, and Robert A. Barraclough. “A multi-cultural examination of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and affective learning.” Communication Quarterly 44 (1996): 297–307. McKay, Sandra Lee. Researching Second Language Classrooms. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. McLaughlin, Barry, and Nandini Nayak. “Processing a new language: does knowing other languages make a difference?” In Interlingual Processes, edited by Hans Wilhelm Dechert and Manfred Raupach, 5– 16. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1989. McNeill, David. “So you think gestures are nonverbal?” Psychological Review 92, no. 3 (1985): 350–71. —. “Iconic gestures of children and adults.” Semiotica 62, no. 1/2 (1986): 107–28. —. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. McNeill, David, ed. Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. McNeill, David. Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. —. How Language Began: Gesture and Speech in Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. McNeill, David, and Susan D. Duncan. “Growth points in thinking-forspeaking.” In Language and Gesture, edited by David McNeill, 141– 61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

166

Bibliography

Merlonghi, Ferdinando, Franca Celli Merlonghi, and Joseph A. Tursi. Oggi in Italia. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982. Miccoli, Laura. “English through drama for oral skills development.” ELT Journal 57, no. 2 (2003): 122–29. Mohan, Bernard, and Sylvia Helmer. “Context and second language development: Preschoolers’ comprehension of gestures.” Applied Linguistics 9 (1988): 275–92. Molinsky, Andrew L., Mary Anne Krabbenhoft, Nalini Ambady, and Y. Susan Choi. “Cracking the non-verbal code. Intercultural competence and gesture recognition across cultures.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36, no. 3 (2005): 380–95. Morford, Jill P., Jenny L. Singleton, and Susan Goldin-Meadow. “The genesis of language: How much time is needed to generate arbitrary symbols in a sign system?” In Language, Gesture, and Space, edited by Karen Emmorey and Judy Reilly, 313–32. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995. Mori, Junko, and Makoto Hayashi. “The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completions: A study of interactions between first and second language speakers.” Applied Linguistics 27 (2006): 195– 219. Morris, Desmond, Peter Collett, Peter Marsh, and Marie O’Shaughnessy. Gestures: Their Origins and Distribution. London: Cape, 1979. Munari, Bruno. Il dizionario dei gesti italiani. Roma: Adnkronos Libri, 1994. Musumeci, Diane. Il carciofo: Strategie di lettura e proposte di attività. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990. Müller, Cornelia. Redebegleitende Gesten: Kulturgeschichte – Theorie – Sprachvergleich. Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 1998. Müller, Cornelia, Silva Ladewig, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, David McNeill, Jana Bressem, and Sedinha Tessendorf, eds. Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Vols. 1–2. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 2013/2014. Nardotto Peltier, Ilaria, and Steven McCafferty. “Gesture and identity in the teaching and learning of Italian.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 17 (2010): 331–49. Nation, Robert, and Barry McLaughlin. “Experts and novices: An information-processing approach to the ‘good language learner’ problem.” Applied Psycholinguistics 7 (1986): 51–6.

Looking Beyond Words

167

Nayak, Nandini, Nina Hansen, Nancy Krueger, and Barry McLaughlin. “Language-learning strategies in monolingual and multilingual adults.” Language Learning 40, no. 2 (1990): 221–44. Negueruela, Eduardo, James P. Lantolf, Stefanie Rehn Jordan, and Jaime Gelabert. “The ‘private function’ of gesture in second language speaking activity: A study of motion verbs and gesturing in English and Spanish.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14, no. 1 (2004): 113–47. Neill, Sean. Classroom Nonverbal Communication. New York: Routledge, 1991. Nelson, Gayle L. “Effective teaching behavior for international teaching assistants.” In Preparing the Professoriate of Tomorrow to Teach, edited by Jody Nyquist, Robert Abbott, Donald Wulff, and Jo Sprague, 427–34. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1991. Neu, Joyce. “Assessing the role of nonverbal communication in the acquisition of communicative competence in L2.” In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, edited by Robin C. Scarcella, Elaine S. Andersen, and Stephen D. Krashen, 121–38. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 1990. Nicoladis, Elena, Rachel I. Mayberry, and Fred Genesee. “Gesture and early bilingual development.” Developmental Psychology 35, no. 2 (1999): 514–26. Núñez, Rafael E., and Eve Sweetser. “With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time.” Cognitive Science 30 (2006): 401–50. Nyberg, Lars, Jonas Persson, and Lars-Göran Nilsson. “Individual differences in memory enhancement by encoding enactment: Relationships to adult age and biological factors.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 26 (2002): 835–39. Olsher, David. “Talk and gesture: The embodied completion of sequential actions in spoken interaction.” In Second language Conversations, edited by Rod Gardner and Johannes Wagner, 221–45. London: Continuum, 2004. Pavlenko, Aneta. Emotions and Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pavlenko, Aneta, ed. Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2011. Peirce, Charles Sanders. The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8 vols. Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (vols. 1–6) and

168

Bibliography

Arthur Burks (vols. 7–8). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931– 58. Pietropaolo, Domenico. “Aspects of English interference on the Italian language in Toronto.” Canadian Modern Language Review 30 (1974): 234–41. —. “Language loyalty and the culture of immigration in early Canadian Italiese.” In Into and Out of Italy: Lingua e cultura della migrazione italiana, edited by Adam Ledgeway and Anna L. Lepschy, 119–27. Perugia: Guerra edizioni, 2010. Pika, Simone, Elena Nicoladis, and Paula F. Marentette. “A cross-cultural study on the use of gestures: Evidence for cross-linguistic transfer?” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9, no. 3 (2006): 319–27. Poggi, Isabella. “Analogie fra gesti e interiezioni.” In Comunicare nella vita quotidiana, edited by Franca Orletti, 117–33. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1983. —. “Sguardi, gesti, parole.” Italiano e Oltre 3 (1986): 106–10. Poggi, Isabella, ed. Le parole nella testa. Guida a un’educazione linguistica cognitivista. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1987. Poggi, Isabella, and Emanuela Magno Caldognetto. Mani che parlano. Gesti e psicologia della comunicazione. Padova: Unipress, 1997. Poulisse, Nanda. The Use of Compensatory Strategies by Dutch Learners of English. Dordrecht: Foris, 1990. Poyatos, Fernando. Crosscultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe, 1988. Poyatos, Fernando, ed. Advances in Nonverbal Communication: Sociocultural, Clinical, Aesthetic and Literary Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1992a. Poyatos, Fernando. “Nonverbal communication in foreign language teaching and learning: A theoretical and methodological approach.” In Evaluation and Language Teaching, edited by André Helbo, 115–36. Bern: Peter Lang, 1992b. Quintilian, Marcus Fabius. Istituzione oratoria. Translated by Orazio Frilli. Vol. 11. Bologna: Zanichelli, 1978. Radutzky, Elena. “La lingua dei segni dei sordi e la comunicazione ‘non verbale.’” In Comunicazione e gestualità, edited by Pio Enrico Ricci Bitti, 86–107. Milano: Franco Angeli, 1987. Ricci Bitti, Pio Enrico. “Facial and manual component of Italian symbolic gestures.” In Advances in Nonverbal Communication: Sociocultural, Clinical, Aesthetic and Literary Perspectives, edited by Fernando Poyatos, 187–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1992.

Looking Beyond Words

169

Rimé, Bernard, and Loris Schiaratura. “Gesture and speech.” In Fundamentals of Nonverbal Behavior, edited by Robert S. Feldman and Bernard Rimé, 239–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Ringbom, Håkan. Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2007. Roach, K. David, Myrna M. Cornett-DeVito, and Raffaele DeVito. “A cross-cultural comparison of instructor communication in American and French classrooms.” Communication Quarterly 53 (2005): 87– 107. Sabatini, Francesco. “L’italiano dell’uso medio. Una realtà tra le varietà linguistiche italiane.” In Gesprochenes Italienisch in Geschichte und Gegenwart, edited by Günter Holtus and Edgar Radtke, 154–84. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1985. Sachs, Jacqueline. “Communication development in infancy.” In The Development of Language, edited by Jean Berko Gleason, 40–69. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Safont Jordà, Maria Pilar, and Laura Portolés Falomir, eds. Learning and Using Multiple Languages: Current Findings from Research on Multilingualism. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. Salvato, Giuliana. “Communication strategies and the study of Italian as second language.” Rassegna Italiana Linguistica Applicata 2/3 (2005): 157–79. —. “The role of gesture in the acquisition of Italian as a second language.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2007. —. “Osservazioni sul rapporto tra lingua verbale e gestualità nella comunicazione orale.” Cultura e Comunicazione II, no. 2 (2008a): 16– 22, 59–60. —. “The representation of gestures in Italian textbooks and workbooks.” Italica 85, no. 1 (2008b): 1–26. —. “The interpretation of gestures in cross-cultural communication: The case of Italian symbolic gestures in second language education.” In Diversity, Otherness, and Pluralism in Italian Literature, Cinema, Language, and Pedagogy. Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, edited by Filomena Calabrese, Lucia Ghezzi, Teresa Lobalsamo, and Wendy Schrobilgen, 309–24. Ottawa: Legas, 2009. —. “La gestualità italiana nelle classi di italiano L2 in Canada.” In Insegnamento dell'italiano L2/LS all'Università: nuove sfide e opportunità, edited by Cristina Capuzzo, Elena M. Duso, and Luisa Marigo, 45–58. Padova: Il Poligrafo, 2010.

170

Bibliography

—. “The interpretation of emblematic gestures in second language users of Italian.” In Language and Bilingual Cognition, edited by Vivian Cook and Benedetta Bassetti, 385–405. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 2011. —. “Suggestions as to how to develop nonverbal competence in Italian L2 classes in Canada.” In Italian Outside of Italy. The Situation in Canada, USA and the English-Speaking World, edited by Salvatore Bancheri, 91–106. Ottawa: Gauvin Press, 2012. —. “Cross-linguistic influences in Canadian learners’ interpretations of Italian emblematic gestures.” In Learning and Using Multiple Languages: Current Findings from Research on Multilingualism, edited by Maria Pilar Safont Jordà and Laura Portolés Falomir, 58–81. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. Selinker, Larry. “Interlanguage.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 10 (1972): 209–31. Serragiotto, Graziano. “Valutazione e certificazioni dell’italiano LS.” In Il ‘lettore’ di italiano all’estero. Formazione linguistica e glottodidattica, edited by Elisabetta Pavan, 184–98. Roma: Bonacci, 2005. Seyfeddinipur, Mandana, and Marianne Gullberg. From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Action as Utterance: Essays in Honor of Adam Kendon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014. Sherman, Jody, and Elena Nicoladis. “Gestures by advanced Spanish– English second-language learners.” Gesture 4, no. 2 (2004): 143–56. Sime, Daniela. “What do learners make of teachers’ gestures in the language classroom?” International Review of Applied Linguistics 44 (2006): 209–28. —. “‘Because of her gesture, it’s very easy to understand’: learners’ perceptions of teachers’ gestures in the foreign language class.” In Gesture: Second Language Acquisition and Classroom Research, edited by Steven G. McCafferty and Gale Stam, 259–80. London: Routledge, 2008. Slama-Cazacu, Tatiana. “Nonverbal components in message sequence: ‘Mixed syntax.’” In Language and Man: Anthropological Issues, edited by William C. McCormack and Stephen A. Wurm, 217–27. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1976. Slobin, Dan I. “From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking.’” In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, edited by John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Speroni, Charles, Carlo Luigi Golino, and Barbara Caiti. Basic Italian. Boston: Thomson and Heinle, 2002.

Looking Beyond Words

171

Stam, Gale. “Speech and gesture: What changes first in L2 acquisition?” Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Minneapolis, MN, September 25, 1999. Stam, Gale. “Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 44, no. 2 (2006): 143–69. —. “Second language acquisition from a McNeillian perspective.” In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill, edited by Susan D. Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena T. Levy, 117–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, 1999. Statistics Canada. Languages. Last updated May 5, 2015. http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/subject-sujet/themetheme.action?pid=50000&lang=eng&more=0&HPA Sueyoshi, Ayano, and Debra Hardison. “The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension.” Language Learning 55, no. 4 (2005): 661–99. Swain, Merrill. “Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development.” In Input in Second Language Acquisition, edited by Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden, 235–53. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985. —. “Three functions of output in second language learning.” In Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson, edited by Guy Cook and Barbara Seidlhofer, 125–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Swain, Merrill, and Sharon Lapkin. Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Study. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 1982. Swain, Merrill, and Robert K. Johnson. “Immersion education: A category within bilingual education.” In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, edited by Robert K. Johnson and Merrill Swain, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Talmy, Leonard. “Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, edited by Timothy Shopen, 57–149. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. —. “Path to realisation: A typology of event conflation.” In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, edited by Laurel A. Sutton, Christopher Johnson, and Ruth Shields, 480–519. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1991.

172

Bibliography

Tarone, Elaine. “Conscious communicative strategies in interlanguage: A progress report.” In On Tesol ’77: Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language, edited by H. Douglas Brown, Carlos A. Yorio, and Ruth H. Crymes, 194–203. Washington, DC: Tesol, 1977. Tellier, Marion. “The effect of gestures on second language memorisation by young children.” Gesture 8 (2008): 219–35. Tomasello, Michael. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Valenzeno, Laura, Martha W. Alibali, and Roberta L. Klatzky. “Teachers’ gestures facilitate students’ learning: A lesson in symmetry.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003): 187–204. von Raffler-Engel, Walburga. “Kinesics and paralinguistics: A neglected factor in second-language research.” Canadian Modern Language Review 36, no. 2 (1980): 225–37. Vygotsky, Lev S. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. —. Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986. Wilcox, Joanne. “Gestures and languages: Fair and foul in other cultures.” In Teaching and Learning Languages, edited by Anthony Mollica, 395–402. Welland, ON: Soleil, 1998. Williams, Sarah, and Bjorn Hammarberg. “Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model.” Applied Linguistics 19, no. 3 (1998): 295–333. Wolfgang, Aaron, and Zella Wolofsky. “The ability of new Canadians to decode gestures generated by Canadians of Anglo-Celtic backgrounds.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 15 (1991): 47–64. Wundt, Wilhelm. The Language of Gestures. The Hague: Mouton, 1973. Yoshioka, Keiko, and Eric Kellerman. “Gestural introduction of ground reference in L2 narrative discourse.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 44, no. 2 (2006): 171–93. Yule, George, and Elaine Tarone. “Eliciting the performance of strategic competence.” In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, edited by Robin C. Scarcella, Elaine S. Andersen, and Stephen D. Krashen, 179–94. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 1990. Zolli, Paolo. Le parole dialettali. Bologna: Rizzoli, 1986. —. Le parole straniere. Bologna: Zanichelli, 1991.

SUBJECT INDEX A acquisition (see first language (L1) and second language (L2)) anaphora, 5, 30, 128 C Canada, 1–3, 16–17, 27, 42–43, 49– 51, 56–58, 69, 73–75, 80–82, 86, 95, 97–99, 102, 106–107, 111, 119, 121–125, 131, 135– 137, 142, 149–151 cross-linguistic influence (see also language transfer), 34, 39, 41– 42, 44, 98, 113, 130–131, 134– 137 D Dutch, 12, 36–37, 39 Dutch gestures, 39 E ESL (see second language (L2)) ESL gestures, 58–59, 61 F first language (L1), 15, 128, 134 acquisition, 14, 24, 33–34, 62, 129 French, 12, 22, 28, 31, 33, 35, 39, 43, 49, 51–55, 64–73, 82, 96, 99, 109, 112, 115–116, 120 French gestures, 96 G gestural language, 16, 24–26, 47– 48, 134, 139, 144 gesture affect displays, 31 affective function, 60 anxiety, 31, 131, 133

arbitrary, 142–143 beats, 4, 15, 24–25, 33, 126, 132 cognitive function, 1, 10, 13, 28, 60, 150 collocation, 140 communicative function, 1, 2, 6, 11–15, 28–29, 93, 95, 150 compensatory, 15, 27–28, 31, 129 complementary with speech, 4– 12, 14–16, 20–22, 28, 30– 31, 35–38, 69, 74, 89, 96, 121, 125, 127–128, 133, 136, 139–140, 142–143, 149 definition, 6 deictic, 4, 23–24, 33–34, 60, 77, 87, 126, 129, 138, 148 emblems, 7, 18, 24, 31–33, 46, 60, 82–84, 87–88, 90, 94– 100, 102, 106, 116, 122– 124, 126, 130, 132, 136, 138, 143–145, 147, 151 for emphasis, 21 for memorization, 22, 127, 149 for referent characteristics, 20, 37, 129 for segmentation, 21 frame of reference, 46 frequency, 30, 32, 35, 37, 132, 145 gesture phrases, 6 ground, 36–38 holophrastic, 147–148 homonymy, 144 iconic, 4, 20, 23, 25, 126, 138, 142–143 illustrator, 31–32, 83, 134 in description, 133 in explanation, 133

174

Subject Index in language development, 4, 13, 30 parallel to speech, 10, 25, 85 preceding speech, 3, 10, 25 in history in Roman times, 3, 4, 145 in the 16th century, 3 in the 18th century, 3 in the 19th century, 3 in the 20th century, 3, 4, 22, 137 in the 21st century, 4, 137 in textbooks, 2–3, 17, 26, 75, 85–89, 93, 107, 111, 119, 121–124, 126, 131, 137– 142, 150 in visual material, 86–89, 94, 121, 137–141 indexical (see gesture: deictic) integrative (see complementary with speech) manner, 4, 7–8, 14, 21, 35, 38, 47, 129, 132–133 manual accents, 16 metalinguistic, 28 metaphoric, 8, 20, 25 path, 4, 8, 14, 20, 35–40, 47, 129, 133 performance, 48 performative, 85 phrasal organization, 21 referential, 15, 28 regional, 82–83, 94, 101, 144– 145 regulatory, 31 representational, 4, 17, 127 rhythmical, 4, 10, 21, 30, 62, 90 semantic categories (see gesture: types) space, 48 spatio-motoric thinking (see also gesture: thought), 11 strategic, 29–30 substitutive for speech, 4–5, 7, 10, 27–28, 30, 34, 70, 96, 133, 136, 139–140, 142, 143, 149

symbolic (see also emblems), 33–34 thought, 5–9, 11, 13–15, 129 timeframe, 19 types, 29, 82, 86, 138–140, 143– 144, 149 universal, 1, 17, 46, 146 uses, 4–6, 17, 19, 21–24, 28–31, 33–36, 40, 46, 48, 59–60, 73–74, 77, 82, 85, 87, 89– 90, 93–94, 97, 111, 126, 128–129, 131, 133–134, 139, 143–144, 149–150 velocity, 20–21 viewpoint (character, observer), 5, 40 gesture studies, 2–3, 5, 11–13, 15– 18, 28–29, 33–34, 39–40, 74, 82–85, 89, 93, 98, 121, 127– 130, 134–135, 142–149 gesture-rich languages, 1, 16, 74, 82, 111, 119, 123 I intercultural understanding, 25–26, 42, 61, 69, 75–76, 80, 93, 97, 125, 149–150 interlanguage, 40, 44, 74, 98, 131 Italian, 1–3, 16–18, 23, 26–27, 32– 33, 42, 49–50, 52–55, 62–70, 73–75, 79–80, 82–83, 85–90, 92, 94–103, 106–125, 131–132, 134, 136–151 Italian gestures, 1, 3, 16, 18, 23, 62, 69–70, 73, 75, 82–83, 87–90, 94–103, 106–124, 132, 136, 139, 142–149 Italian sign language (LIS), 143 Italy, 1, 3, 6, 18, 42, 75, 82–83, 87– 89, 106–107, 111, 119, 122– 123, 137, 140, 142–146, 152 J Japanese, 16, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 47–48, 65–66, 68, 72, 82, 118, 134

Looking Beyond Words Japanese gestures, 33, 48, 118 L language pedagogy, 2–4, 12–13, 17–24, 26, 28, 32–34, 39, 41, 44, 48, 57–62, 73–82, 85, 89– 90, 93–97, 121–133, 135–137, 139–143, 149–150 affective learning, 20 assessment, 12, 44–45, 74, 78– 79, 102, 131–132 cognitive approach, 4, 10 communicative approach, 4, 10 communicative purpose, 4, 20, 149 competence, 4, 29, 31, 58, 76, 79–80, 93–94, 97, 126, 137, 149 performance, 4, 15, 29, 33 language planning, 2, 42, 75 language studies (see language pedagogy) language transfer (see also crosslinguistic influence), 15, 25, 27, 31–32, 34, 36–40, 47, 73, 98, 102–105, 122–124, 132, 134 M multicompetence, 2, 27, 39–41, 44, 48, 74, 97, 125 multilingualism, 2–3, 16–18, 27, 32–33, 40–46, 48, 51, 57–58, 63, 69, 73–74, 80, 97–98, 113– 114, 121–123, 125, 130–131, 135–137, 149–150 education, 42, 46, 48 gesture, 46, 48 multimodality, 2–3, 11–12, 17, 27, 40–41, 45, 48, 69, 73–74, 89, 124–127, 130–131, 133, 135– 137, 140–142, 149 N non-gesture-rich languages, 16, 37

175

nonverbal behavior, 5, 11, 15–16, 19–29, 31, 56–62, 73–75, 77– 82, 86–90, 93–94, 97, 121, 124– 132, 134–137, 141, 147, 149 nonverbal competence, 3, 26, 48, 97, 121–123, 132, 149–151 P paralinguistics, 77–78, 93 plurilingualism, 75, 79 private speech (see self-talk) S second language (L2), 1, 3, 11–12, 15–18, 36–37, 39–40, 42, 47, 89, 98–99, 102, 125–127, 129, 131, 134–135, 151 acquisition (SLA), 3, 11–15, 17, 25, 27–28, 30–34, 38–40, 56–62, 73–74 pedagogy (see language pedagogy) self-talk, 5, 59 Spanish, 1, 31, 34–36, 38, 48, 50, 52, 64–71, 73, 99, 109, 115, 120 Spanish gestures, 48 speech intonation, 6, 21, 23–24, 26, 62, 76, 81, 93 phonemic clauses, 10 preceding gesture, 10, 25 prosody, 15 speech community, 1, 7, 14, 23–24, 26, 90, 93–94, 126, 130, 134, 141, 144, 149–150 T thinking-for-speaking, 14, 34–38, 133 third language (L3), 75, 99, 102 Z zones of proximal development (ZPD), 14, 62

INDEX OF NAMES A ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (see Breiner-Sanders) Alferink, 39, 135 Alibali, 19 Allen, 22, 33, 127–128, 130 Ambady, 26 Anderson, 131 Archer, 26, 144, 146–147 Argyle, 19, 100 Armand, 42 Armstrong, 24–25 Asher, 22 Aski, 88 Ayman-Nolley, 13, 19 B Bailey, 19 Balboni, 25–26 Balì, 88 Bancroft, 26 Barraclough, 20 Bassetti, 40 Bates, 33 Beattie, 5, 11, 20 Berruto, 144–145 Bettoni, 42 Bialystok, 28 Birdwhistell, 25 Bley-Vroman, 44 Branciforte, 87 Bräuer, 62 Breiner-Sanders, 80–81 Bressem, 2, 11, 73, 125 Bretherton, 33 Brown A., 39–40, 131, 134–135 Brown H. D., 126 Buller, 19 Burgoon, 19 Butterworth, 10–11

C Caiti, 88 Calbris, 123 Campbell, 28 Canadian Ministry of Education, 2, 56–58, 81–82 Carrara, 86 Cassia, 42 Cenoz, 42–45, 75, 113, 130, 135 Chamberlin-Quinlisk, 58 Chen, 27, 37 Choi, 26 Church, 13, 19 Cicogna, 87 Cienki, 2, 11, 73, 125 Clark, 4, 20, 42, 127, 130 Clivio, 42 Clyne, 42 Cohen A. A., 11, 128 Cohen R. L., 20, 42, 127 Collett, 46, 83–84, 87, 96, 145 Colli, 2 Common European Framework (see Council of Europe) Contarello, 145 Cook, 15, 40–42, 45, 74, 97, 122 Cornett-DeVito, 19 Cortelazzo, 145 Council of Europe, 2, 27, 75–80 D Dagenais, 42 Danesi, 2, 42, 87, 93, 121, 130, 136 De Angelis, 44, 130 De Geer, 28 de Jorio, 84–85, 144 De Ruiter, 10 Debreslioska, 5 DeTurck, 19 DeVito, 19

178

Index of Names

Dewaele, 99, 130 Di Pietro, 61 Diadori, 2, 82, 93–94, 96, 98–100, 130, 142–148 Dini, 88 Dittman, 10 Dörnyei, 58 Duff, 43 Duncan, 9, 24, 35 Düwell, 26 E Efron, 31–32, 48, 84, 122 Ekman, 32, 143 Engelkamp, 20, 127 F Faculty of Arts and Science, 75, 99 Faerch, 28 Fakhri, 29 Fayer, 20 Federici, 88 Feyereisen, 10 Frassica, 86 Freedman, 10 Fricke, 2, 11, 73, 125 Friesen, 32, 143 G Gafaranga, 45 Galli de’ Paratesi, 79 Galván, 28 Gass, 30 Gelabert, 34, 38–39 Genesee, 33, 43 Goldin-Meadow, 5, 13, 19, 33, 48 Golino, 88 Goodwin C., 128 Goodwin J., 21 Graham, 100 Gregersen, 21, 31, 133–134 Grosjean, 45, 130 Gullberg, 2, 5, 11–12, 16, 27–34, 39–40, 48, 59–60, 73, 97, 125, 127–129, 131, 135

H Hadar, 10–11 Hale, 19 Hall, 21 Halliday, 140 Hammarberg, 44, 99 Hanna, 143 Hansen, 44 Hardison, 58–59, 129 Haught, 61–62, 136 Hayashi, 12, 128 Helmer, 32 Hofstede, 25 Holler, 5 Holmqvist, 48 Hornberger, 43 Hufeisen, 75, 113, 130 I Inglis, 19 Ishihara, 22, 126–127 Iverson, 5 J Jaffe, 45 Jakobson, 138, 143 Jarvis, 34, 98–99, 113, 122 Jenkins, 20 Jessner, 44–45, 75, 113, 130 Jewitt, 41 Johnson, 43 Jungheim, 17, 32–33, 130 K Kasper, 28 Keller C. M., 126 Keller J. D., 126 Kellerman E., 16, 25, 32, 34–38, 100, 132, 147 Kellerman S., 2, 58, 129 Kendon, 1, 3, 5–8, 11, 13, 21, 46, 74, 84–85, 119, 127, 129, 133 Kita, 10–11, 38, 46–47 Klatzky, 19 Knapp, 21 Krabbenhoft, 26

Looking Beyond Words Kress, 41 Krueger, 44 L Ladewig, 2, 11, 73, 125 Lantolf, 34, 38–39 Lapkin, 43 Lazaraton, 2, 22, 58, 126–127, 129 Lazzarino, 88 Lettieri, 87 Levelt, 10 Lowe, 80–81 M Magno Caldognetto, 142–143, 147 Mahootian, 13, 19 Maiguashca, 87 Maraillet, 42 Marcos, 27 Marentette, 35 Marsh, 46, 83–84, 87, 96, 145 Masur, 33 Mayberry, 33 Maynard, 48 McCafferty, 14–15, 30, 33, 59–62, 74, 90, 128, 134, 136 McCroskey, 20 McKay, 120 McLaughlin, 44 McNeill, 2, 5–9, 11, 13–14, 25, 28, 35, 73, 125, 127–128 Merlonghi F., 86 Merlonghi F. C., 86 Miccoli, 61 Miles, 80–81 Mohan, 32 Molinsky, 26 Morford, 33 Mori, 12, 128 Morris, 46, 83–84, 87, 96, 145 Munari, 82 Musumeci, 87 Müller, 2, 11, 48, 73, 125 N Nardotto Peltier, 33, 90, 134

179

Nathan, 19 Nation, 44 Nayak, 44 Negueruela, 34, 38–39 Neill, 2 Nelson, 19 Neu, 29, 37 Nicoladis, 33–35 Nilsson, 20 Núñez, 47 Nyberg, 20 O O’Shaughnessy, 46, 83–84, 87, 96, 145 Olivares-Cuhat, 21, 31, 133–134 Olsher, 12 Otterbein, 20, 42, 127 Ö Özyürek, 5, 11, 38, 47 P Paivio, 4, 20, 42, 127, 130 Parra, 20 Pavlenko, 26, 34, 40, 46, 99, 113, 122, 130, 135 Peccianti, 88 Peirce, 138 Perniss, 5 Persson, 20 Pietropaolo, 42 Pika, 35 Poggi, 93–94, 130, 142–143, 145, 147–148 Portolés Falomir, 135 Poulisse, 28 Poyatos, 24–25, 42 Q Quintilian, 4 R Radutzky, 143 Rehn Jordan, 34, 38–39 Ricci Bitti, 100, 145, 147

180

Index of Names

Richmond, 20 Riga, 88 Rimé, 100 Ringbom, 131–132 Roach, 19 S Sabatini, 145 Sachs, 24 Safont Jordà, 135 Sallinen, 20 Saltzman, 48 Salvato, 1–3, 62, 69, 86–89, 97, 100–102, 121–122, 130–131, 136–141, 150–152 Schiaratura, 100 Scott, 58 Selinker, 16, 30, 131 Serragiotto, 76 Seyfeddinipur, 2, 11, 73, 125 Sherman, 34 Shore, 33 Shovelton, 11, 20 Sime, 16, 19, 60–61 Singleton, 33 Slama-Cazacu, 15, 128 Slobin, 14, 34, 37, 133 Snyder, 33 Speroni, 88 Stam, 14, 35–36, 60, 74, 133 Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century, 2, 27, 80 Statistics Canada, 16, 49–52, 150– 151 Stokoe, 24–25 Storm, 21, 31, 133–134 Sueyoshi, 58–59, 129

Swain, 43 Sweetser, 47 Swender, 80–81 T Talmy, 34–35, 37, 132–133 Tarone, 28–29 Tellier, 2, 22–23, 127 Tessendorf, 2, 11, 73, 125 Tomasello, 14 Tursi, 86 V Valenzeno, 19 Van Hoof, 16, 35–36 Volterra, 33 von Raffler-Engel, 16, 21 Vygotsky, 9, 10, 14–15, 62, 128, 136 W Wagner, 13 Walsh, 42 Wilcox J., 24 Wilcox S. E., 24–25 Williams, 44, 99 Wolfgang, 123, 130 Wolofsky, 123, 130 Wundt, 3 Y Yoshioka, 37–38 Yule, 29 Z Ziglio, 88 Zolli, 145–146