The analysis presented in this thesis focuses on four semiotic modes: words, gestures, head movements and intonation. In this section I describe my approach to each of these modes.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, when I refer to “words" as a mode I use the term in a broad sense to include all the verbal-linguistic material (as opposed to paralinguistic or kinesic aspects) used by speakers. Therefore, under the umbrella term “words” I include: 1) lexical resources (e.g. a specific word choice); 2) grammatical resources (e.g. a particular choice in sentence structure); 3) stylistic resources (e.g. the use of a three-part list); and 4) register (e.g. the use of slang).
It must be noted that in most cases there are no clear-cut divisions between these four categories. For example, when one of the speakers in a product pitch describes his product as "safer, faster and easier to use than waxing kits" I find that there is an interesting word choice in the three comparative forms of the adjectives that express evaluation, but I am equally
130 interested in the fact that the speaker is using a three part list that provides the text with memorability.
My approach to words is totally data-driven. I have not searched my corpus for specific instances of lexical choice, stylistic devices or particular types of sentences. This is a conscious research decision to avoid a natural tendency as a linguist to focus my analysis on words and limit the analysis of the other modes to instances of correlations. For example, I might find that a three part list is synchronous with an enumerating gesture, that the intonation used divides the three items of the list in three tone units with parallel intonation, and that three head nods are used to index each item, which would be a prefect correlation between the four modes. However I consider that the effect of gestures, intonation or head movements can be interesting in itself, even when no stylistic device is synchronously used or when there is nothing remarkable in the choice of words.
As my description of the other modes that follows in the next paragraphs will reveal, my approach to words is, in comparison, much less systematic. This is again a research decision that is due to the fact that speakers are more linguistically literate and more conscious of their use of words that the other three modes. This means that in order to discuss their use of intonation or gestures (as I do in the interviews described in Chapter 5) some systematic classification was helpful, but it would probably have been limiting in the case of words (for example by imposing a closed list of options from which to choose to describe and classify something that they can explain themselves much better in their own way).
For the analysis of gestures and head movements I draw on previous research by McNeill (1992), McClave (2000), Kendon (2002, 2004), Bavelas et al. (1995) and Querol- Julián (2011). I focus on the aspects summarized in Table 4.1, which are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
Table 4. 1 Analysis of gestures and head movements Synchrony
McNeill (1992)
Phonological Semantic Pragmatic Interaction with other
modes
(Kendon 2004)
Offers equivalent or complementary meaning
Relates to the discursive situation and dialogue implied Adds a new layer of meaning
131
Function Referential (Kendon 2004) Interpersonal (Bavelas et al. 1995) Pragmatic (Kendon 2004)
Cohesive (McNeill 1992, Querol-Julián 2011) Type Iconic (McNeill 1992)
Metaphoric (McNeill 1992)
Beats (Kendon 2004, Bavelas et al. 1995) Deictics (Kendon 2004)
Gesture family (Kendon 2004)
Precision grip G-family (finger bunch) = seizing R-family (ring)= making precise
Open hand Prone (down/ palms facing addressee)= halt, stop
Supine (up/ palms facing speaker)= offer, willing to receive Closed Fist Amplitude and repetition (McClave 2000; Kendon 2002)
Normal, high or low One or more repetitions
As pointed out in Chapter 3 synchrony refers to the timing of the gesture in relation to other modes. For this I draw on McNeill’s rules that can be summarized as follows:
i) Phonological synchrony rule: the stroke tends to precede or be synchronous with the prominent syllable of the utterance;
ii) Semantic synchrony rule: gestures tend to be synchronous with words that share their meaning;
iii) Pragmatic synchrony rule: gestures tend to be synchronous with words that share their same pragmatic function.
This is interesting to get further insight into how different modes interact in the creation of a persuasive message, in particular how gestures interact with words and intonation. For example from these rules it is possible to deduct a tendency for gestures to co-
132 occur with prominent words in tone units, and with words that share the same referential meaning and pragmatic function.
Interaction with other modes will indicate the role of the gestures within the multimodal ensemble. A gesture can contribute to the meaning expressed through other modes, for example complementing the verbal referential meaning giving a visual representation of a movement described with words. It can also relate to the discursive situation, referring to the dialogue implied. In this case the speaker is focusing on the potential reaction of the addressee and produces a gesture accordingly, for example anticipating a potential counterclaim and refuting it. Finally, as Kendon (2004) points out, a gesture can add a new layer of meaning as a new speech act.
The function of the gesture will indicate what its purpose is, that is, whether it is used to represent an aspect of the content (referential), to regulate interaction (interpersonal), to link parts of discourse (cohesive), or whether it is used pragmatically to show attitude or perlocutionary meaning. These functions are by no means clear-cut, and some gestures can perform more than one function at a time. This is the case with deictic gestures. They are referential in that they refer to an object under discussion, but pragmatic when they also show the speaker’s attitude towards this object or what the addressee is expected to do with this object (e.g. examine it, consider it an example of something, etc.). Another example is beats. They can be considered pragmatic in that they serve to guide the understanding of the message, but can also be cohesive when they highlight the structure of discourse. As mentioned in Chapter 3, Bavelas, Chovil, Coates and Roe (1995) have argued that beats are actually interactive gestures, because they ultimately refer to the addressee in different ways. The function of a gesture can be very revealing about the persuasive strategy used. An interpersonal gesture in a presentation, for example, is a sign that the speaker is trying to involve the audience and probably seeking alignment with the views expressed.
The type of gesture will reveal its relationship with the meaning it conveys. An iconic gesture represents concrete objects and events, for example a finger ring that represents a circular instrument. Metaphoric gestures represent abstract ideas. Beats are repetitive gestures that, among other things, mark the discourse flow. They frequently accompany prominent words in tone units. Deictic gestures are used to point to something in the environment.
Finally gesture families can help group similar gestures according to their kinesic features and build correlations between recurrent shapes and related meanings. As explained
133 in Chapter 3, Kendon (2004) suggests that gestures with similar kinesic characteristics can be grouped into families, each family sharing a common semantic theme, and each gesture within the family adding a particular semantic nuance. A brief explanation of each family as a way of reminder is offered in the next paragraphs.
Two different precision grip families are differentiated. The gestures within the G- family, also called “finger bunch”, share the following position: fingers are brought together touching at their tips, forming a sort of bunch. The semantic theme conveyed by these gestures is that of seizing.
The R-family gestures all have in common a position of the fingers emulating a ring. They have the semantic theme ‘making precise’. These gestures are used when this precision seems necessary to gain agreement, persuade or facilitate understanding.
Gestures realised with an open hand and palm facing down (if the gesture is horizontal) or facing the addressee (if the gesture is vertical) are grouped within the open hand prone family. They all share the semantic theme of “halt” or “stop”. The last family suggested by Kendon is the open hand supine. These are gestures made with the palm of the hand facing up, and their semantic theme is ‘offering’ or ‘willingness to receive something'.
To Kendon’s classification I have added the closed fist family, including gestures realised with a closed feast. These closed feast gestures were frequent in my corpus, but could not be fully explained using Kendon's suggested families, hence my addition. Figure 4.1 illustrates the analysis of one specific gesture in a research dissemination talk.
Figure 4. 1 Example of gesture analysis
A “stop” sign with open hands, palms facing the audience (open hand prone, vertical) visually represents how society prevents people from considering other options than what she is expressing with words (i.e. "everybody should be treated the same"). This metaphoric gesture is both referential and pragmatic, and adds a sense of disagreement with this statement that is not explicitly said in words.
“And we have been taught that everybody should be treated the same”
134 Finally, in the case of head movements I consider two aspects as particularly important for persuasion: amplitude, that is how wide the head shake or how long the head nod is, and repetitions since they can show the speaker’s emphasis and stance. For example a wide head shake repeated several times can indicate strong disagreement to what is being expressed with words (i.e. the speaker is talking about views which are contrary to what he or she supports) or to the expected reaction from the audience (i.e. the speaker predicts the audience will deny his or her claim and refutes this potential denial before it actually happens).
One of my hypotheses in this thesis is that gestures can contribute to express meaning in presentations more effectively and subtly than other modes, and for this reason I consider they can be powerful persuasive tools. On the one hand, they can contribute to creating rapport, a sense of inclusivity and shared ground with the audience, and they can subtly communicate meanings which would otherwise not be considered acceptable or polite (e.g. strong disagreement). In addition, given the time constraints and relationship with the audience established in product and conference presentations, they are particularly effective in these communicative situations. For example, a gesture can help reduce the processing effort for the audience by presenting part of the meaning visually.
The analysis of intonation draws on Brazil’s discourse intonation (1985, 1997). As explained in Chapter 3, the main tenet of this approach is that speakers make meaningful choices in their use of intonation, that reveal their assumptions about the interaction in the communicative process. Discourse intonation (DI) divides speech into tone units, each one containing one or two prominent syllables. The first prominent syllable in a tone unit is called onset, the second is called tonic syllable. Several tone units together make up a pitch sequence. DI claims that speakers make choices in four systems with which meaningful contrasts can be produced: prominence, tone, key and termination. As a reminder, they are summarized in Table 4.2, together with their meaning addition and their potential contribution to persuasion:
135 Table 4. 2 Discourse Intonation (adapted from Brazil 1985)
SYSTEM DEFINITION OPTIONS MEANING
POTENTIAL PERSUASIVE EFFECT
PROMINENCE
Prominent syllables are louder and longer Prominent vs. non prominent New vs shared knowledge Selective vs only alternative Debatable vs already negotiated
TONE Pitch movement
Rise-fall Fall Level Rise Fall-rise New vs shared knowledge Type of response expected Debatable vs already negotiated
Seek active response vs prompt to concur
KEY
Relative pitch of onset syllables in relation to the onset syllable of the previous tone unit.
High Mid Low Equating Addition Contrast Prompt inferences Build rapport TERMINATION Relative pitch of tonic syllables in relation to the onset syllable in the same tone unit High Mid Low Type of response expected Surprise
Seek active response vs prompt to concur
In conclusion, by looking closely at intonation it is possible to learn about aspects such as which parts of the message the speaker regards as shared knowledge (and therefore agreed upon) and which parts are presented as new information (and potentially open to discussion). It also reveals the reaction that the speaker expects of the interactant or who is in a dominant position in the communicative process. These are all crucial for the understanding of how persuasion is achieved. It must be noted that in the present study combined tones (fall-rise and rise-fall) have not been distinguished. The reason for this research decision is that they mainly
136 convey information about power relationships and in particular dominance, which in the case of the presentations analysed tend to remain rather stable throughout. It was considered that the potential added value of this distinction did not justify the analysis cost at this stage. Figure 4.2 illustrates my analysis of intonation applying DI:
Figure 4. 2 Example of intonation analysis