Istic units when those units are co-produced with a beat gesture. There are also correlations between specific gestural forms and the NSC 697286 price information structural role of the speech they accompany. This provides another dimension of similarity between gesture and prosody as specific prosodic melodies have also been found to correlate with, and potentially signal, specific information structural interpretations (Hirschberg and Ward 1995, Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg 1990). As discussed by Jackendoff (1972), for example, the sentence “Fred ate the beans” has a specific prosodic melody ( fall ise) on Fred when uttered in response to the question “What about Fred?” This melody marks Fred as the contrastive topic of the utterance and changes if the information structural role of Fred changes (as is the case when the question under discussion is instead “What about the beans?”). Gesture, too, may provide a cue to the information structural properties of speech, and listeners may be sensitive to this information. For example, Kendon (1995) has found that the topic (vs. comment) portion of an utterance in Southern Italy frequently co-occurs with a grasp-like closure of the hands (“Finger Bunch”), whereas the focus (vs. theme) portion of the utterance frequently co-occurs with a precision gesture in which the thumb and index finger form a circle (“Ring”) (see Pan-RAS-IN-1 site Seyfeddinipur 2004 for kindred observations from Iran, and Lempert 2011 for related observations about political speeches). Moreover, like prosody, gesture has effects on the meaning of a given string. For example, Prieto et al. (2013) found that both prosody and gesture can influence whether Catalan ning?and Spanish nadie receive a negative concord (“nobody”) or double negative (“everybody”) interpretation. Along the same lines, Harrison (2010) found that the scope of a PD325901 cost negator like not or n’t in English ?that is, the string of words that the negator negates ?may co-occur with a negative gesture held in space (MG-132 web post-stroke hold), whereas the negator itself co-occurs with the gestural stroke.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptLang Linguist Compass. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.Abner et al.Page3.2. SEMANTIC INTEGRATION OF SPEECH AND GESTUREAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptA fundamental difference between speech and gesture is that their representational formats are different and, as a result, the two modalities are suited to expressing different kinds of information: speech is categorical and discrete, whereas gesture is gradient and analog. Speech is thus not well-equipped to encode visuo-spatial information, whereas gesture seems to be designed for this task. For example, when a speaker utters the box is near the table, he or she has encoded in speech two objects (box and table) and a relation between them (near). However, the co-speech gesture produced along with this utterance is likely to encode fine-grained information about the objects (the size of the box and the height of the table) and their relation (how far apart the two are and how they are arranged) that does not appear in speech. In this case (as in most instances of co-speech gesture), the gesture functions as a semantically supplementary channel to the spoken language: the gesture contributes information that is not fully specified in the speech. Recent formal work has debated the nature of the supplementary semantic information that g.Istic units when those units are co-produced with a beat gesture. There are also correlations between specific gestural forms and the information structural role of the speech they accompany. This provides another dimension of similarity between gesture and prosody as specific prosodic melodies have also been found to correlate with, and potentially signal, specific information structural interpretations (Hirschberg and Ward 1995, Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg 1990). As discussed by Jackendoff (1972), for example, the sentence “Fred ate the beans” has a specific prosodic melody ( fall ise) on Fred when uttered in response to the question “What about Fred?” This melody marks Fred as the contrastive topic of the utterance and changes if the information structural role of Fred changes (as is the case when the question under discussion is instead “What about the beans?”). Gesture, too, may provide a cue to the information structural properties of speech, and listeners may be sensitive to this information. For example, Kendon (1995) has found that the topic (vs. comment) portion of an utterance in Southern Italy frequently co-occurs with a grasp-like closure of the hands (“Finger Bunch”), whereas the focus (vs. theme) portion of the utterance frequently co-occurs with a precision gesture in which the thumb and index finger form a circle (“Ring”) (see Seyfeddinipur 2004 for kindred observations from Iran, and Lempert 2011 for related observations about political speeches). Moreover, like prosody, gesture has effects on the meaning of a given string. For example, Prieto et al. (2013) found that both prosody and gesture can influence whether Catalan ning?and Spanish nadie receive a negative concord (“nobody”) or double negative (“everybody”) interpretation. Along the same lines, Harrison (2010) found that the scope of a negator like not or n’t in English ?that is, the string of words that the negator negates ?may co-occur with a negative gesture held in space (post-stroke hold), whereas the negator itself co-occurs with the gestural stroke.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptLang Linguist Compass. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.Abner et al.Page3.2. SEMANTIC INTEGRATION OF SPEECH AND GESTUREAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptA fundamental difference between speech and gesture is that their representational formats are different and, as a result, the two modalities are suited to expressing different kinds of information: speech is categorical and discrete, whereas gesture is gradient and analog. Speech is thus not well-equipped to encode visuo-spatial information, whereas gesture seems to be designed for this task. For example, when a speaker utters the box is near the table, he or she has encoded in speech two objects (box and table) and a relation between them (near). However, the co-speech gesture produced along with this utterance is likely to encode fine-grained information about the objects (the size of the box and the height of the table) and their relation (how far apart the two are and how they are arranged) that does not appear in speech. In this case (as in most instances of co-speech gesture), the gesture functions as a semantically supplementary channel to the spoken language: the gesture contributes information that is not fully specified in the speech. Recent formal work has debated the nature of the supplementary semantic information that g.Istic units when those units are co-produced with a beat gesture. There are also correlations between specific gestural forms and the information structural role of the speech they accompany. This provides another dimension of similarity between gesture and prosody as specific prosodic melodies have also been found to correlate with, and potentially signal, specific information structural interpretations (Hirschberg and Ward 1995, Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg 1990). As discussed by Jackendoff (1972), for example, the sentence “Fred ate the beans” has a specific prosodic melody ( fall ise) on Fred when uttered in response to the question “What about Fred?” This melody marks Fred as the contrastive topic of the utterance and changes if the information structural role of Fred changes (as is the case when the question under discussion is instead “What about the beans?”). Gesture, too, may provide a cue to the information structural properties of speech, and listeners may be sensitive to this information. For example, Kendon (1995) has found that the topic (vs. comment) portion of an utterance in Southern Italy frequently co-occurs with a grasp-like closure of the hands (“Finger Bunch”), whereas the focus (vs. theme) portion of the utterance frequently co-occurs with a precision gesture in which the thumb and index finger form a circle (“Ring”) (see Seyfeddinipur 2004 for kindred observations from Iran, and Lempert 2011 for related observations about political speeches). Moreover, like prosody, gesture has effects on the meaning of a given string. For example, Prieto et al. (2013) found that both prosody and gesture can influence whether Catalan ning?and Spanish nadie receive a negative concord (“nobody”) or double negative (“everybody”) interpretation. Along the same lines, Harrison (2010) found that the scope of a negator like not or n’t in English ?that is, the string of words that the negator negates ?may co-occur with a negative gesture held in space (post-stroke hold), whereas the negator itself co-occurs with the gestural stroke.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptLang Linguist Compass. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.Abner et al.Page3.2. SEMANTIC INTEGRATION OF SPEECH AND GESTUREAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptA fundamental difference between speech and gesture is that their representational formats are different and, as a result, the two modalities are suited to expressing different kinds of information: speech is categorical and discrete, whereas gesture is gradient and analog. Speech is thus not well-equipped to encode visuo-spatial information, whereas gesture seems to be designed for this task. For example, when a speaker utters the box is near the table, he or she has encoded in speech two objects (box and table) and a relation between them (near). However, the co-speech gesture produced along with this utterance is likely to encode fine-grained information about the objects (the size of the box and the height of the table) and their relation (how far apart the two are and how they are arranged) that does not appear in speech. In this case (as in most instances of co-speech gesture), the gesture functions as a semantically supplementary channel to the spoken language: the gesture contributes information that is not fully specified in the speech. Recent formal work has debated the nature of the supplementary semantic information that g.Istic units when those units are co-produced with a beat gesture. There are also correlations between specific gestural forms and the information structural role of the speech they accompany. This provides another dimension of similarity between gesture and prosody as specific prosodic melodies have also been found to correlate with, and potentially signal, specific information structural interpretations (Hirschberg and Ward 1995, Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg 1990). As discussed by Jackendoff (1972), for example, the sentence “Fred ate the beans” has a specific prosodic melody ( fall ise) on Fred when uttered in response to the question “What about Fred?” This melody marks Fred as the contrastive topic of the utterance and changes if the information structural role of Fred changes (as is the case when the question under discussion is instead “What about the beans?”). Gesture, too, may provide a cue to the information structural properties of speech, and listeners may be sensitive to this information. For example, Kendon (1995) has found that the topic (vs. comment) portion of an utterance in Southern Italy frequently co-occurs with a grasp-like closure of the hands (“Finger Bunch”), whereas the focus (vs. theme) portion of the utterance frequently co-occurs with a precision gesture in which the thumb and index finger form a circle (“Ring”) (see Seyfeddinipur 2004 for kindred observations from Iran, and Lempert 2011 for related observations about political speeches). Moreover, like prosody, gesture has effects on the meaning of a given string. For example, Prieto et al. (2013) found that both prosody and gesture can influence whether Catalan ning?and Spanish nadie receive a negative concord (“nobody”) or double negative (“everybody”) interpretation. Along the same lines, Harrison (2010) found that the scope of a negator like not or n’t in English ?that is, the string of words that the negator negates ?may co-occur with a negative gesture held in space (post-stroke hold), whereas the negator itself co-occurs with the gestural stroke.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptLang Linguist Compass. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.Abner et al.Page3.2. SEMANTIC INTEGRATION OF SPEECH AND GESTUREAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptA fundamental difference between speech and gesture is that their representational formats are different and, as a result, the two modalities are suited to expressing different kinds of information: speech is categorical and discrete, whereas gesture is gradient and analog. Speech is thus not well-equipped to encode visuo-spatial information, whereas gesture seems to be designed for this task. For example, when a speaker utters the box is near the table, he or she has encoded in speech two objects (box and table) and a relation between them (near). However, the co-speech gesture produced along with this utterance is likely to encode fine-grained information about the objects (the size of the box and the height of the table) and their relation (how far apart the two are and how they are arranged) that does not appear in speech. In this case (as in most instances of co-speech gesture), the gesture functions as a semantically supplementary channel to the spoken language: the gesture contributes information that is not fully specified in the speech. Recent formal work has debated the nature of the supplementary semantic information that g.