semanti-cally linked for iconics than for deictics, which is also reflected in the temporal syn-chrony in our data (iconic gestures: 1249 ms; -655 ms GS to +594 ms SG vs. deic-tic gestures: 1141 ms; -787 ms GS to +354 ms SG). In the same continuum of se-mantic synchrony, emblems are described as least sese-mantically linked to speech since they are comprehensible without speech. In Study 6, emblematic gestures with naturally co-occurring redundant speech were examined, which resulted in the closest preferred temporal synchronies of all gestures (emblematic gestures:
942 ms; -337 ms GS to +605 ms SG). This in turn might be due to the redundant semantic relation between the modalities, which is more complementary in deictic speech-gesture combinations and mostly associative in iconic speech-accompany-ing gestures. The smaller window of AVI for emblematic and deictic gestures with co-produced speech is closer to the preferred window of AVI for physical cause-and-effect stimuli (881 ms; -597 ms VA to +284 ms AV). While speech is not caused by gestures, it is caused by air flow through the speech apparatus. There are certain multimodal proximity pairs expected by the listener to occur together, such as a deictic verbal expression like “over there” with a gestural one such as pointing over there alongside it. An even stronger expectation of semantic align-ment, with our without temporal synchronization, might happen with gestural em-blems – if they are accompanied by any speech at all, it should reinforce the ges-ture and hence be semantically redundant, such as a thumbs-up with a simultane-ous “Well done!”.
type on the degree of synchrony entered by the participants was discovered (F(3, 792) = 7.42E8; p < .01).
Combining the results of Studies 5 and 6, there is a clear variation in synchrony range between gesture types and between physical events (Figure 38).The post hoc Tukey test on the various gesture types and the physical event stimuli re-vealed a significant impact of the stimulus type on the preferred synchrony only for the emblematic gestures (p < .01). The iconic (p = .078) and deictic (p = .226) ges-tures with their co-produced speech did not contrast as strikingly with the cause-and-effect stimuli. Taking the iconic gestures as the reference category, emblemat-ic function signifemblemat-icantly influences the preferred speech-gesture synchrony (p < .01), but deictic gestures are show a marginal significant difference from the iconic ones (p = .078).
Figure 37: Range of asynchronies set for gestures and physical events in Studies 5 & 6.
There still is a narrow window for the preferred synchrony of physical events (87 ms VA to 672 ms VA; SD = 214.4), and the iconic gestures are synchronized only loosely with their speech (908 ms GS to 778 ms SG; SD = 386.4). The resynchro-nizations of emblematic and deictic gestures show different patterns: Both got resynchronized closer to their original timing than the iconic gestures. The deictics were readjusted more similarly to the physical events (51 ms GS to 1171 ms SG;
SD = 321.2), with more of a tendency toward an audio advance. The emblematic gestures were also resynchronized more closely with their non-obligatory speech (607 ms GS to 1216 ms SG; SD = 284.4) than the iconic ones to their disam-biguating speech. It appears there are some conditions for speech-gesture AVI af-ter all.
8.3.2 General discussion of Studies 5 and 6
The results for the physical events and speech-gesture utterances show that par-ticipants accept delays or advances in both the acoustic and the visual modality.
Like the Perceptual Judgment Task, this supports hypothesis (2) of this disserta-tion that “[l]isteners are able to discriminate variadisserta-tion in the synchrony of sponta-neously co-produced speech and gestures and they will prefer a window of AVI en-compassing both gestural advance and delay” (p. 85), which has been a major gap in previous research. The Preference Task supports the results of the Percep-tual Judgment Task by confirming and even expanding the wide range of accepted offsets: hypothesis (3), that “[l]isteners are able to reproduce the synchronization they prefer between speech and co-produced gestures” (p. 85), could equally be supported by the results. However, while audiovisual stimuli such as physical events and speech-lip signals require a production-like, tight synchrony, the rele-vance of such a synchrony between speech and gesture is not supported. Deictic and emblematic gestures do seem to entail a closer temporal synchrony to their co-occurring speech than iconic gestures. This may be due to a closer semantic relation between the modalities during the phase of synchronous production.
The audio and video in the physical events stand in a causal relationship while speech and gesture share a semantic, conceptual connection. In multimodal lan-guage production, they temporally align to a certain degree. The speech-gesture 150
continua by McNeill (2005, pp. 7ff. based on Kendon, 1988) give a more specific explanation of the varying levels of gesture-speech entrainment. McNeill (2005) classifies gestures along a continuum regarding the obligatoriness of speech: For
‘gesticulations’, such as iconic and deictic gestures, speech is mandatory for dis-ambiguation and complementation, while for emblems it is optional; for pantomime and sign language speech need not be present. One can modify this continuum to include deictic and iconic gestures in lieu of the encompassing gesticulations (Fig-ure 39):
One can hypothesize that with loosening semantic synchrony the need for tem-poral synchrony becomes less because of the decreasing disambiguating function of co-occurring speech. Another factor is the theme-rheme frame discussed in Kirchhof (2011; Chapter 6.6), which binds the gesture to a certain sentential and hence temporal frame of an utterance. These frames are present in the stimuli of both the Perceptual Judgment Task and the Preference Task, and the participants accepted larger temporal asynchronies than had been found in production. Hence, I hypothesized that gestures only need to synchronize loosely with their co-occur-ring speech. The Preference Task disproves this to a certain degree because dif-ferent windows of AVI are accepted by the participants for difdif-ferent gesture types:
Emblems seem to need more synchrony with speech than deictics and deictics than iconics. This information can provide us with a sketch of a temporal continu-um (Figure 40) diverging from the semantically governed one:
The close temporal synchrony between speech and gesture is a well-known production phenomenon, and it seems be more important for AVI than previously thought. Since iconic gestures complement phrases and utterances, the temporal window for their AVI is only bound by the utterance duration and the timing within this boundary is flexible. Deictic gestures correspond to deictic parts of speech (POS), the closest a gesture can be to lexical affiliation with speech. They are
se-Figure 40: Continuum of temporal speech-gesture synchrony in perception.
mantically and temporally bound and their phases are short, which makes the tem-poral window for AVI small. Emblematic gestures, then, are a special case. When they occur together with speech they are redundant to certain POS. In the Prefer-ence Task, participants synchronized them closely to their temporal production synchrony, which suggests a tight semantic and temporal bound between the two modalities for this gesture category. As with deictic gestures, their phases are short, but, due to their redundancy, the window for AVI is slightly larger.
As de Ruiter (2000) and Kirchhof (2011) already suggested, the relation be-tween gestures and speech is governed by conceptual bounds. For perception, this conceptual package is transmitted by an internal (re)synchronization of the du-ration of the gphr with the speech it is semantically associated with, by AVI. Within one theme-rheme pair, production-like synchrony is not necessary for the listener.
However, it might be restricted to the duration of a full utterance, which might con-tain more than on theme-rheme pair (Chapter 6.6). I suggest that gesture-speech synchrony within utterance borders is a predominantly production-based phenom-enon. This explains why in the Perceptual Judgment Task and the Preference Task there was a wide range of accepted as well as of preferred asynchronies between the speech and co-expressed gesture: Listeners do not require speech-gesture synchrony and hence cannot reproduce it.
As McNeill (2012) speculated on the conceptual transmission of a speech-ges-ture utterance, “the time limit on growth point asynchrony is probably around 1~2 secs., this being the range of immediate attentional focus” (p. 32). The GP is tem-porally flexible in perception, with the possibility of either modality preceding the other by up to 1418 ms, depending on the gesture type. One can observe a semi-otic connection between the two modalities by analyzing co-produced speech and gestures. What cannot be done so easily is to desynchronize or semantically mis-match speech and gesture during production (cf. Holler et al., 2009). Our results strongly suggest that speech-gesture synchrony is rather a consequence of the production system but, as far as actively set preferences are concerned, seems not to be crucial for comprehension. This finding should allow for a higher toler-ance of timing in modeling gestures in virtual agents and robots and could inform
and inspire future research into the perception of naturally co-occurring speech and gestures.
As has been briefly discussed in the beginning, this dissertation does not aim to explicitly analyze the relevance of speech-gesture production synchrony for com-prehension, but for perception. Transferring the findings of the temporal windows of AVI from the varying sets of studies to the model of the GP-SP transmission cy-cle will need to take into account the temporal flexibility in perception nevertheless, since any multimodal utterance will have to be integrated by L to facilitate compre-hension. The model draft shown in Figure 13 already included alignment mecha-nisms in the perception module, as well as in the production unit. It is now possible to further specify the temporal tasks and restrictions of the perception module in the model. This as well as other additional factors gained from the results of the Conceptual Affiliation Study (Chapter 6), the Perceptual Judgment Task (Chapter 7), and the Preference Task (Chapter 8) will be discussed in the following and con-cluding Chapter 9.