From speaker to speaker: Repeated gestures across dyads Anna Kuhlen Mandana Seyfeddinipur Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY Stanford University, Stanford, CA Introduction Speakers in dialogue have been shown to converge over time on the use of specific verbal expressions. This repeated use of expressions has been called lexical entrainment (Brennan & Clark, 1996; Garrod & Anderson, 1987). Studies suggest that there might be a comparable phenomenon in gesture. Interlocutors show a higher rate of similar gestures when they can see each other (Kimbara, 2006). Also, watching mimicked speech and gesture leads to higher production of mimicked speech and gesture (Parrill & Kimbara, 2006). However, speakers in previous studies had multiple exposures to features of target gestures or the mimicked gestures were produced when speakers co-narrated an event with a friend. The question arises whether speakers take up specific gesture forms when they only see it once and even if they are not conversational partners. Methods • 27 students from the University of California, Riverside watched one of five video clips in which a speaker describes a series of narrative events. • Video clips varied whether speakers used gestures and if so, what gesture form they used. • Subsequently, participants had to relate those same events to an addressee. • Participants’ gestures were coded for one narrative target event (praying) by classifying them as one of four different gesture forms. • The probability of producing a certain gesture form after seeing it in the stimulus clip was compared to the baseline probability. . Conclusions The results suggest that speakers do take up specific forms even if they see it only once from a speaker who is not a conversational partner. This type of gestural uptake indicates that gesture is processed in a comparable way to how speech is processed and that the two build a fully integrated system in the mind of the speaker. However, there are many questions this project raises: • Would we find (even) stronger gestural uptake if participants actually were conversational partners? • Current analysis is based on emblematic gestures. Can results be extended to non- conventionalized gestures? • Is gestural uptake based on a basic priming mechanism or on a high level social reasoning? - FIGURE(s) RESULTS - Original gesture Repeated gesture Repeated gesture Original gesture Repeated gesture Repeated gesture Results Of the 27 praying gestures produced by the retellers 74% matched the gesture produced in the stimulus (Figure 1). To test for significance we used a resampling test, in which 10,000 pseudo experiments were generated by randomly pairing each speaker with a video clip other than the one they originally viewed. The results showed that the 74% matching rate was well beyond the cut-off value of 37% in the distribution of the pseudo experiments (p< .001). and the bear he puts his hands together he puts both paws together the bear gets down on his knees pulled his paws together takes his hand down and he goes like this and he starts praying he puts his paws together kneels and says takes his paw off of the guy and folds it together Figure 1. Chance probability of a gestural match between a participant and a randomly chosen speaker versus observed rate. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 chance rate observed rate This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0325188 and by the Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship FP6- 509899 -GESTURE to Mandana Seyfeddinipur. puts his hands together he puts his two hands together and starts to pray puts his hands together and goes oh lord please bless the food I am about to receive. he puts his hands together and he’ s praying