1. The relation between gesture and sign has been a central topic in gesture studies, particularly in sign language research.
2. There have been different conclusions drawn about the relation between gesture and sign, with Kendon highlighting commonalities, McNeill underlining differences, and Goldin-Meadow postulating a categorical divide.
3. The article offers a historical reconstruction of the discussion in gesture studies and presents a theoretical framework for exploring the dynamic relations between gesture and sign.
The article "Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations?" provides a historical reconstruction of the discussion on the relation between gesture and sign in the field of gesture studies. The author analyzes the works of Kendon, McNeill, and Goldin-Meadow to show how their positions have evolved over time. The article argues that a close reading of the history of scholarly discussions can offer valuable insights into current debates.
The article is well-researched and provides a comprehensive overview of the debate on gesture and sign. However, it is important to note that the author's perspective is based on linguistic gesture studies, which may limit its applicability to other fields. Additionally, while the article presents a counter-argument to Goldin-Meadow's position, it does not fully explore her reasoning for postulating a cataclysmic break between gesture and sign.
The article also lacks discussion on potential risks associated with blurring the lines between gesture and sign. For example, if gestures are considered part of signed language, there may be implications for deaf individuals who rely on signed language as their primary mode of communication. Additionally, there may be implications for language acquisition research if gestures are considered part of signed language.
Overall, "Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations?" offers valuable insights into the debate on gesture and sign in linguistic gesture studies. However, readers should be aware of potential biases based on the author's perspective and limitations in exploring all aspects of the debate.