Brookes - Quotable Gesture

Heather Brookes
HUMAN SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL, SOUTH AFRICA
A Repertoire of South African

Quotable Gestures
Web-enhanced article
Additional materials related to this article are available at the JLA website:
http://www.aaanet.org/sla/jla/, under the link Web-enhanced articles.
Among black urban South Africans in Gauteng province, quotable gestures are a prominent part of everyday communication. Using observations and video recordings of spontaneous communicative interactions, elicitation interviews, and a decoding test, this study
presents the repertoire of quotable gestures in current use. Quotable gestures fall within
three main gestural types: lexical, holophrastic, and concept, with lexical gestures constituting the highest proportion. Within each gestural type, gestures vary in their range of
meanings, functions, and independence from speech. This variation suggests that sharp
distinctions between gestural types and between quotable and speech-dependent gestures
may obscure continuities in meaning, function, and how gestures originate and develop.
The article discusses recent work that suggests alternative organizational criteria for the
analysis of gestures. It proposes that analysis of gestures begin at the level of interaction,
taking into account how social relationships, cultural notions, and identity shape forms of
gestural use and behavior. [quotable gestures, emblems, repertoire, typology, South
Africa]
n a comparative study of gestural communication in New York City during the

1930s, David Efron (1972) noted that southern Italian immigrants made extensive use of gestures that expressed aspects of the semantic content of speech and
used a wide range of conventional gestural forms, including emblematic gestures, in
everyday interactions. He compared their gestural behavior with Yiddish-speaking
immigrants, who made more use of gesture to mark aspects of discourse structure,
rarely used gesture iconically in relation to spoken content, and had few emblematic
gestures.1 Efron also showed that these differences virtually disappeared in succeeding assimilated generations (Kendon 1997, 2004).
Since Efrons study, scholars of gesture have distinguished between gestures that
appear improvisational in character and those that have stable forms and meanings,
can be used independently of speech, and can be quoted like words or phrases in
spoken language (Kendon 1992). Some cultural groups appear to have developed
extensive repertoires of these gestures, commonly known as emblems (Ekman and
Friesen 1969) or quotable gestures (Kendon 1992).2
A number of repertoires of gesture have been published for cultures including
Libyan and Moroccan (Barakat 1973; Brewer 1951), Catalan (Payrato 1993), French
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Vol. 14, Issue 2, pp. 186224, ISSN 1055-1360, electronic ISSN 1548-1395.

C 2004 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for
permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Presss Rights
and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
186
A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures
187
(Calbris 1990; Wylie 1977), Italian (Diadori 1990; Efron1972; Munari 1963), Kenyan
(Creider 1977), North American (Johnson et al. 1975; Saitz and Cervenka 1972), Iranian
(Sparhawk 1978), Russian (Monahan 1983), South American (Meo Zilio and Mejia
1980; Rector 1986; Saitz and Cervenka 1972), and Spanish (Green 1968; Kaulfers 1931;
Meo Zilio and Mejia 1980). (For a comprehensive list see Payrato 1993.)
These repertoires contain descriptions and illustrations of each gesture along with
verbal glosses of their meanings. However, compilers rarely provide information
about the methods they used to identify these gestures, the criteria applied to categorize them as quotable, and on what basis the verbal glosses were decided. Notable
exceptions are H. G. Johnson, Paul Ekman, and Wallace Friesen (1975), who outlined a comprehensive method for identifying quotable gestures, and Llus Payrato
(1993), who introduced systematic criteria for establishing quotability in his identification of Catalan emblems.3 Most published repertoires, however, still tell us little
about the users of quotable gestures, their functions, their relationship to speech, their
semantico-grammatical nature, or their status in everyday communication.
A few studies have examined these aspects more systematically. Based on her
knowledge as a native user, Isabella Poggi (1983a, 1983b, 1987; Poggi and Zomparelli
1987) suggests that southern Italian quotable gestures fall into two semanticogrammatical categories according to whether they function like words (lexical gestures) or as communicative acts (holophrastic gestures) (see also Kendon 1992).
Using video recordings of spontaneous communicative situations among southern
Italians, Adam Kendon (2004) identifies similar gestural types as well as concept gestures, which are less closely tied to specific spoken expressions than are lexical and
holophrastic gestures. Heather Brookes (2001) and Joel Sherzer (1972, 1991) have published analyses of quotable gestures that are similar to the concept gestures Kendon
describes.
These studies have made some contribution to understanding the semiotic nature
and function of quotable gestures. However, apart from Efrons study, we still do
not have an analysis of the semantico-grammatical nature of a repertoire of quotable
gestures based on systematic observation and analysis of such gestures in actual use.
Poggi bases her analysis on a systematic exposition of her own knowledge of gesture
(and language) use as a native gesturer and speaker (Kendon 1992:103) rather than
on an analysis of gesture use in spontaneous communicative situations, a limitation
that is also characteristic of most previously published lists of quotable gestures.
Without natural communicative data, Kendon (1992) argues, we cannot adequately
describe the functions these gestures fulfill, their semantico-grammatical nature, the
proportion of different gestural types, or the semantic domains they cover. A study
addressing these issues would also establish a basis for systematic comparison across
gestural repertoires as to the kinds of concepts that become expressed in quotable
gestural form. Moreover, by studying gestures in use, Kendon (1992) writes, we might
establish what tasks such gestures fulfill and consequently why extensive repertoires
develop in some communities and not in others.
The aim of this article is to lay the groundwork for addressing some of the questions
Kendon (1992) raises, through the identification and analysis of a previously undocumented gestural repertoire used among black urban South Africans in the province
of Gauteng. This repertoire is a prominent part of everyday communication and is
common across speakers of the nine different African languages in former black residential areas, or townships, of this region.4 Townships are residential areas where
black people were forced to live in impoverished and overcrowded conditions under
apartheid. These areas have remained despite the end of apartheid in 1994. Brought
together in close proximity in these urban ghettoes since the beginning of the 20th
century, black urban South Africans of different ethnic origins have forged a unique
urban culture with its own hybrid forms of communication, both spoken and gestural. Township dwellers use quotable gestures in multiple ways: to communicate at a
distance, to participate simultaneously in more than one communicative exchange,
for secret communication, and in conjunction with spoken language.5 However,
188
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology
the repertoire and extent of their use differ across age, gender, and situational
context.
Male youth between the ages of approximately 18 and 25 years, a transitional period
between childhood and adulthood, have developed the largest repertoire and make
the most extensive use of these gestures in communicative interactions with their
peers, often in conjunction with a male youth argot spoken across Gauteng townships
that is sometimes referred to as Iscamtho.6 During this transitional period, young men
spend much of their time on the township streets participating in the network of
street-corner groups that forms the basic social organizational structure for young
men in this age group. Here spoken language and gesture create an antilanguage that
maintains an alternative culture with its own social structures and values (Halliday
1978).7
Language and gesture are key elements in the expression of male urban township
identity and play a central role in the negotiation of social identity and group membership. To belong to these street-corner groups, a young man must exhibit the values
and skills expected of someone who is streetwise and city-slick, core characteristics of
male urban township identity (Brookes 2001). Key among these skills is knowledge of
the latest Iscamtho and skillful use of both this language and the gestural repertoire
in narratives, frequently hypothetical stories of male daring and sexual conquest that
capture the attention of their peers.
Young men use gestures for several reasons: to provide vivid visual representations
of spoken content; to convey information either as a substitute for or in combination
with speech, particularly for humorous effect and in-group secret communication; to
create specific dramatic effects (e.g., in marking discourse structures); and to manage
interactions so as to direct and maintain peer attention. Such skilled communicative
performance is crucial to gaining and maintaining access and status within these
street-corner structures (Brookes 2001). Sufficient status to control a street-corner
group depends on a young mans ability to remain communicatively dominant by
outperforming his peers. If a young man does not display streetwise qualities, particularly the communicative skill to hold the attention of his peers, they describe him
as boring and label him bare stupid, and he becomes an object of ridicule. Ridicule
may lead to beatings from his peers, an important male ritual that boosts their status
within male neighborhood social networks and ensures the young mans exclusion
(Brookes 2001).
This article presents the repertoire of quotable gestures in use among the general
population of Gauteng and among male township youth in particular. Identification
of gestures involved a systematic methodology similar to that of Johnson et al. (1975)
and Payrato (1993), including elicitation, systematic exposition of native gesturers
knowledge, and an experimental gesture-decoding test; in addition to their research,
however, I also included spontaneous communicative data. The article examines aspects of these gestures semantico-grammatical nature in relation to previously identified typologies of quotable gestures and compares the proportion of various gestural
types across gestural repertoires. It also explores the semantic domains that gestures
cover, as well as changes in the repertoire over time. Finally, it considers how differences in the continuity of function and meaning among gestures challenge existing
typologies and require additional organizational criteria for understanding the nature
and development of these gestures.
Data Collection
Data collection occurred over a period of approximately one year in 1998 and early
1999 in a typical township in the Gauteng region. The author, with a young male
coresearcher from the local community, collected approximately 10 hours of video
recordings of naturally occurring communicative interactions and kept written observations of instances of gestural use. Video recordings consisted mainly of conversations among young men on street corners, in their yards, and inside their houses;
189
conversations among mixed-gender groupings; and communicative interactions at

larger social events such as parties.
Written observations of gestural use included descriptions of the physical environment; interactants (including gender, age, ethnicity, dress, and social identity such
as subcultural affiliation8 ); other contextually relevant information such as relationships among interlocutors; other participants present or peripheral to the interaction;
and the sequence of events, including communicative interactions leading up to the
instance of gestural use as well as subsequent responses. Also noted were the form,
directionality, movement, and manner of gestural performance, spoken language (if
used in conjunction with gesture), and approximate timing of gestures in relation to
speech. Although video recordings provide the most accurate data of gestural use,
detailed written observations were an important source of data because instances of
gestural communication and some gestures are often difficult to capture on video.
Data collection also involved elicitation interviews with three key consultants, gesture decoding tests with 18 participants (9 male and 9 female between 18 and 25 years),
and 17 interviews with male and female community members across a range of ages
on their knowledge and use of gesture as well as patterns of gestural use and behavior
in their community.
Performance of each gesture in video-recorded elicitation interviews provided the
form and movement of each gesture, and interviewees recall of examples from spontaneous situations of use gave an initial indication of each gestures range of meanings
and functions, and the gestures relationship to speech. The decoding test provided
data on the level of independence of each gesture from speech; the verbal gloss,
reflecting the prototypical meaning given to each gesture as well as other possible
meanings; differences in knowledge of gestures between men and women; primary
users of various gestures across age and gender; and whether a gesture was part of
the contemporary repertoire. (See the following paragraph for details of the procedures used in elicitation interviews and decoding tests.) Interviews with community
members on gestural usage focused on differences in gestural use and performance
among users across gender, age, and a range of social identities within township society; variation in gestural use and performance according to different social settings,
situations, and interactional purposes; and social meanings attached to gestural uses
and styles among users in a variety of contexts.
Analytic Approach
Drawing on data from video recordings, written observations, and elicitation interviewees recall of gestural usage, my coresearcher and I compiled a series of hypothetical examples of how each gesture is used in a variety of situations. Using
these examples, we examined the semantic scope of each gesture. We identified the
range of meanings it expresses, and how it functions grammatically either as a single
holophrastic unit that always expresses the same complete communicative act (e.g.,
an insult), or a unit that refers to a single concept and expresses multiple communicative acts in different contexts and can combine as one component of a communicative
act to convey different messages, rather like lexical words in spoken language. (See
below for examples.) Where existing data were insufficient to determine grammatical
function, we asked elicitation interviewees to judge the series of hypothetical examples and determine whether a gesture functioned as a single communicative act or
could have multiple functions.
The difficulty of capturing spontaneous instances of gesture use meant that there
was sometimes very little communicative data on a gesture, making it necessary to
base analysis on users recall of examples of actual use and their ability to judge
whether these examples were an accurate reflection of how the gesture functions in
authentic situations. As demonstrated in the next section, users reflections on their
own knowledge of gestural use were sometimes contradictory and required various
means of verification.
190
The semantico-grammatical analytic approach described here follows Poggis analysis of Italian quotable gestures, in which she compares them to units in spoken
language (Poggi 1983a, 1983b, 1987; see also Kendon 1992). As described in the introduction, Poggi distinguishes two basic categories of quotable gestures: (1) holophrastic
gestures, which have a fixed meaning and function, require a complete sentence as a
spoken gloss, and are the equivalent of interjections in spoken language; and (2) lexical
gestures, which express a single concept but do not realize a complete communicative act until situated within a specific context or combined with other components,
therefore functioning similarly to words in spoken language.
However, when examining gestures with respect to their semantico-grammatical
characteristics at the microstructural level, this approach did not always adequately
capture the full meaning and function of some gestures. Sherzer (1991) identifies this
problem in his analysis of the Brazilian thumbs-up gesture; he notes that its commonly understood meaning of good, positive, or okay does not reflect or explain
the range of meanings and functions it expresses in actual use. Sherzer proposes that
a fuller understanding of such gestures requires identification of their paradigmatic
meanings in relation to the range of emergent meanings in contexts of actual use in
combination with socio-interactional or syntagmatic meanings and functions. In the
case of the thumbs-up gesture, its paradigmatic meaning of positive must be understood in combination with its underlying syntagmatic function, social obligation
met. Applying Sherzers analytic framework allows for a better understanding of the
relationship between different meanings and functions of a single gestural form and
consequently how a gesture might be categorized in relation to various gestural types.
Identifying the Quotable Gestural Repertoire
Video recordings and written observations of gestures in situ, followed by elicitation interviews and decoding tests, were the main steps for identifying the quotable
gestural repertoire, as suggested by Johnson et al. (1975), and are similar to Payratos
(1993) methodology for identifying Catalan emblems. Categorization of gestures also

involved consideration of processes of production and reception, variation, and features of the situational contexts where gestures occur (Payrato 2001, 2003; Sherzer
1991). Comparison and corroboration across these sources of data was also an essential methodological component.
Identifying Conventional Gestural Forms
To identify conventional gestural forms, a native gesturer from the community
and I used video recordings and written observations of spontaneous communicative
situations, noting every gestural movement considered to have communicative content, in that it is part of the process of deliberate utterance or expression (Kendon
1981:135). Based on these initial observations, plus the native gesturers recall of his
gestural repertoire, previously published repertoires of quotable gestures from other
cultures (listed above), and William Stokoe and Rolf Kuschels (1979) Basic Sign Vocabulary List and Checklist of Cultural Items, we drew up a list of concepts that might
have equivalent gestural forms.9 We also included in this list concepts and items that
are a prominent part of everyday life in the particular sociocultural context of the
township. For example, the list contained actions and objects relating to soccer (the
most popular sport); items of clothing such as caps and shoes that are significant in relation to youth subcultural identities; various weapons and activities associated with
political and criminal violence (common features of everyday township life during
and since apartheid, respectively); and traditional beliefs, items, and structures such
as witchcraft, home-brewed beer, and kinship terms.
We used this list in videotaped elicitation interviews with three 22-year-old male
consultants chosen as part of the age group with the most extensive gestural repertoire.
Consultants came from various language backgrounds, as townships have been
191
ethnically mixed since their establishment in the early 20th century. Because the most
common languages in this township are Zulu, Xhosa, and South Sotho, we chose two
native speakers of Xhosa and Zulu and one native speaker of South Sotho. As urban
male township dwellers, the consultants all speak a number of languages, including the local lingua franca, Zulu, and the age-related male youth variety, Iscamtho.
All three consultants speak both the Zulu-based and South Sothobased varieties of
Iscamtho common to their particular township.
In elicitation interviews, we asked consultants to provide gestural equivalents for
300 spoken items (both words and communicative acts) given in English, South Sotho,
Zulu, or Iscamtho. If consultants provided an equivalent gesture, they then recalled
examples of how gesturers would typically use it. We also presented each interviewee
with consultants examples from the other two elicitation interviews and asked them
to judge whether these instances reflected the way in which a given gesture is used
in spontaneous communicative situations. Examples derived from elicited recall of
gestural use that were judged to be reflective of actual use were used as supplementary
data to video recordings and written observations of spontaneous communicative
situations, particularly when there was little in situ data on a gesture.
After these steps, the interviewer then performed each gesture back to consultants
without spoken language, asking what meanings it would convey and how contextual features might determine differences in meaning. Such back-performance gave
an initial indication of the gestures independence from speech, its range of meanings
and functions, and whether it functions more like a word or as a complete communicative act. For example, consultants who provided a gesture in response to a word
or phrase sometimes indicated that it was difficult to interpret without various situational features such as the accompanying spoken language. Thus the gesture given
for after, in which one hand makes a forward arc, could be interpreted as tomorrow
(the most likely interpretation), after, over there, or in the future.
Gestures performed independently of speech also sometimes elicited other meanings and functions besides the initial meaning that elicited them. For example, the
gesture for clever or streetwise, in which the first and fourth fingers of one hand
point to the gesturers eyes with a back-and-forth sideways movement, also elicited
a range of meanings in relation to the concept of seeing (Brookes 2001); see Figure 1.
Moreover, a gesture initially interpreted as equivalent to a single communicative
act might also convey other communicative acts suggesting a different semanticogrammatical categorization. For example, the gesture for talk, in which the thumb
and extended fingers make an opening and closing motion in front of the mouth, was
initially interpreted as You talk too much and classified as an insult; see Figure 2.
However, when gestures were performed back to consultants, they provided other
interpretations depending on situational factors, and these interpretations showed
that the gesture was equivalent to the single concept talk.
On the basis of spontaneous communicative data and elicitation interviews, we
categorized a gesture as conventional if it fulfilled any one of the following three criteria: (1) it was observed more than once in spontaneous communicative situations
expressing a similar meaning or function; (2) it was observed in a spontaneous communicative situation, and a native gesturer claimed that it was typical of his speech
community and stated what the gesture contributed communicatively or provided a
spoken gloss; or (3) it was elicited from two native gesturers and was claimed to have
been observed or used by them. From the initial list of 300 items, we identified 290
gestures as conventional.10
Establishing Levels of Quotability
To identify quotable gestures in the conventional gestural repertoire, we conducted
a decoding test with two groups, a group of nine men and a group of nine women; all
participants were between the ages of 18 and 25.11 Consultants were native speakers
192
Figure 1
Clever.
of Zulu, South Sotho, Tswana, and Xhosa and had lived most or all of their lives in
urban areas in Gauteng.
Consultants watched a video recording of a native gesturer performing the 290 conventional gestural forms independently of speech. For each gesture, they provided a
written gloss,12 stated whether the gesture is currently in use, and identified the main
users of each gesturethat is, the general population (men and women of all ages),
male or female youth, or childrento determine the extent of different repertoires
across age and gender. A gesture was classified as quotable if 50 percent or more of
either male or female consultants provided a similar verbal gloss. A decoding test
assumes that quotable gestures are more likely to have higher recognition rates than
other gestures when presented in a decontextualized manner. However, some commonly used gestures such as discourse markers, which cannot occur independently
of speech (Kendon 1995), and gestures that are spontaneous iconic representations
of their referents also had recognition rates of over 50 percent. In a context where
extensive use is made of iconic gestures, consultants may be particularly skilled at decoding their meanings. Consequently, in order to categorize a gesture as quotable, we
triangulated consultants level of recognition with whether we had observed, or consultants had confirmed, that a gesture could occur independently of speech; whether
consultants gave consistently similar interpretations or glosses of a gesture in the
decoding test; and whether speakers or gesturers viewed a gesture as part of their
official quotable repertoire. Nevertheless, distinguishing between spontaneous gestural representations and established quotable gestures is not always straightforward,
193
Figure 2
Talk.
particularly in relation to iconic representations of objects and actions common to everyday life.
One hundred forty-three gestures emerged as quotable, although such repertoires
are by no means fixed and may change over time. Gesture systems confined to specific
domains of use, such as the gestural set indicating Gauteng commuters destinations
when using the public minibus-taxi transport system, are not included in the repertoire, but deictic gestures, including pronouns and gestures of time and place, are included. The Appendix contains verbal glosses and descriptions of each gesture based
on the most common gloss consultants provided in the decoding test. These glosses
appear in the original languages (Zulu, South Sotho, and Iscamtho) with English
translations.
The decoding test showed that native gesturers considered 95 (67 percent) of
quotable gestures to be part of a general repertoire, 45 (31 percent) to be used mainly
by men, and only 3 (2 percent) to be almost exclusively female gestures. Men scored
higher than women in their recognition of quotable gestures, with a mean score of
8 out of 9 men and 7 out of 9 women recognizing each gesture. Observations and
descriptions of gestural use in interviews suggest that womens active quotable gestural repertoire is more limited than mens and is confined to particular situations and
instances of use.
Some Semantic and Grammatical Features of Quotable Gestures
An analysis of in situ and elicited examples suggests three categories of quotable
gestures: gestures equivalent to words, gestures equivalent to complete communicative acts, and concept gestures.
194
Figure 3
Money.
Word-Equivalent Gestures
Similar to Poggis identification of lexical gestures in Italy, in the South African
repertoire of quotable gestures some are semantically and structurally equivalent to
words. Poggi (1983a; 1983b) and Poggi and Zomparelli (1987) use the term lexical for
such gestures because, like words, they refer to a single concept and can function as
part of a communicative act. A lexical gesture is directly translatable into a spoken
word and refers to only a single referent unless combined with other gestures, speech,
or contextual elements. In actual use, such gestures can convey a variety of communicative acts independently of speech. Context determines the communicative act and
whether the gesturer is making a question, statement, offer, or command. When used
singly, lexical gestures are usually interpreted as a complete message, but the intended
message is closely tied to context and the message can vary from one instance to the
next. They can also function as a component of a message in conjunction with other
gestures. A common example of a lexical gesture in the South African repertoire is
the gesture for money, in which the upturned tips of the thumb and first two fingers rub together (Figure 3). This gesture can convey a variety of communicative acts,
such as asking for money or commenting on someone who has a lot of money. As a
component of a complete communicative act in conjunction with other gestures, the
gesture for money can be used together with the gesture for nothing, in which the
hands are raised with palms turning upward, to convey the message I dont have any
money.
195
Table 1
Lexical gestures (Total: 78).
Actions
Arrest
Beat
Beat/hit
Beat
Bewitch
Break
Burn
Chop (a car)
Cock (a gun)
Cook
Cry
Cut
Down
Fight
Fuck (old gesture)
Fuck (new gesture)
Fuck/sex
Go
Hit continuously
Kill
Pay
Run away
Scare
Sleep
Smoke marijuana/mandrax
Strangle
Study
Sweep
Talk
Urinate
Vomit
Walk/go
Wash (oneself)
Wash (clothes)
34
Actions/objects
Objects/people
Dig/laborer
Drink/alcohol/beer
Eat/food
Gun/shoot
Lock/key
Marijuana/crush
Marijuana/smoke
Phone/telephone
Photograph/camera
Smoke/cigarette
Soccer/dribble
Stab/knife
Write/pen
Beard
Beer (home-brewed)
Cap
Car
Cards
Child
Dice
Father/boyfriend
Girl/girlfriend
Haircut
Hat (wool hat)
Jacket/coat/jersey
Lip balm
Little
Marijuana
Matches
Money
Scissors
Scissors kick
Secret lover
Seven
Six
Spectacles
Time
Two
Wristwatch
13
26
Deictics
I/me
Now/today
Over there
Tomorrow
You
*Numbers that have unusual conventionalized forms have been included.
There are 78 lexical gestures in the South African repertoire. These gestures include
deictics and references to objects, people, and actions, as well as forms that refer
to either an entity or its associated action (see Table 1). For example, the gesture in
which both fists, with thumbs extended, move back and forth toward the mouth
can refer to either eating or food (see Figure 4). Except for gestures that refer to
both the action and its associated object, all other lexical gestures have only one
referent except the gesture for father. When used by women, it means boyfriend (see
Figure 5).
An analysis of the semantic domains covered by lexical gestures shows that some
depict objects and actions that are part of everyday life, such as the gestures for
telephone, pen or write, key or lock, cook, scissors, lip balm, and sleep.
Such gestures are common among the general population and are used for practical
exchanges of either goods and services or information when communicating at a distance, or to avoid interrupting a conversation or making noise. These gestures express
a limited range of meanings and functions independently of speech. For example,
196
Figure 4
Food/eat.
Figure 5
Father.
197
Figure 6
Sleep.
the gesture for sleep usually either gives information that someone is asleep or asks
whether someone is asleep (see Figure 6). Users categorization of these gestures as
spontaneous depictions or established gestures appears to depend on a gestures frequency of use.
Other lexical gestures reflect objects, activities, concerns, and topics of conversation among young men. There are lexical gestures for certain kinds of clothing, such
as the jackets, caps, and wool hats that are part of young mens dress code in the
townships (Figures 7, 8, and 9). Young men use these gestures to identify a person in the immediate vicinity, to specify to whom they are referring in a conversation, to draw attention to or comment on a persons clothing, to request the loan
of such items, or for visual dramatic effect in narrative performances among their
peers.
Functioning in a similar manner to identify or comment on others are gestures that
refer to personal features and possessions, such as a persons hairstyle, beard, spectacles, and wristwatch. Other male activities and concerns, such as smoking cigarettes
and marijuana (Figure 10), drinking alcohol (Figure 11), playing dice, playing soccer,
girlfriends, and sex, are also part of the repertoire.
There are also three lexical gestures for forms of beating, a frequent and significant
activity within male social networks (Figures 12, 13, and 14). The first gesture involves
flicking the side of the first finger against the second finger. The tip of the second finger
rests on the tip of the thumb. Without speech, it commonly functions as a warning that
198
Figure 7
Jacket.
Figure 8
Cap.
Figure 9
Wool hat.
Figure 10
Marijuana.
199
200
Figure 11
Drink/alcohol.
Figure 12
Beat 1.
Figure 13
Beat 2.
Figure 14
Beat 3.
201
202
Figure 15
Fuck (new gesture).
the recipient will be in trouble and is likely to receive a beating. The second gesture
is a fist with knuckles directed at the recipient. This gesture is usually a direct threat
of beating someone, but observations also reveal that gesturers use it as a warning to
refer to a third party that might be likely to beat the recipient of the message, or as a
statement about a past event. For example, the neighbor of a young man who received
a beating from another young man on the same street used this gesture without speech
whenever the aggressor went past, as a way of mocking the victim and reminding him
of his humiliation. The third gesture involves hitting one fist diagonally downward
into the cupped palm of the other hand. Most commonly used to depict the force of a
blow when talking about someone who was beaten, it can also function as a command
to beat someone. Other gestures relating to violence and criminal activities are those
for gun or shoot, knife or stab, strangle, arrest, chop (of a stolen car; to chip
off the engine number), cock (a gun), and fight.
There are also quotable gestural equivalents for words such as fuck that are inappropriate to say in front of adults (see Figure 15). Observations show that young
men perform these gestures in public places and in close proximity to other community members who might find such topics offensive, in such a way as to make these
gestures almost unnoticeable. Since the form of gestures such as fuck also changes
periodically when they become too well known, adults or female peers may notice
the gesture but are unlikely to know its meaning. Statements about others to which
people might take offence, such as suggesting that someone practices witchcraft, also
have quotable gestural equivalents. The gesture for bewitch, the gesture for He or
she is lying, and the gesture for HIV are three examples. Other topics about which
people might also want to communicate secretly have gestural forms as well. Warning someone that an authority figure (such as their father or an older man in the
203
Figure 16
Girlfriend.
community), a girlfriend, or a secret lover is near (Figures 16 and 17), or communicating about obtaining alcohol or marijuana in the presence of adults are common
examples. Although the general population may know some of the latter gestures,
skilful performance can conceal them from the casual observer.
The number of possible communicative acts that lexical gestures perform independently of speech varies. The gesture for scissors, in which the first and second fingers
open and close, usually functions only as a request for scissors, or simultaneously as
a request and a question whether someone has scissors.13 On the other hand, the
gesture for talk, in which the thumb and extended fingers make an opening and
closing motion in front of the mouth, can convey a number of messages such as Lets
talk, Theyre gossiping, Talk quietly, Talk louder, and You talk too much. This
variation suggests that lexical gestures have a range of meanings and functions. Lexical gestures that develop from spontaneous depictions fulfilling immediate practical
functions realize only one or two communicative acts. Other gestures, such as talk,
that not only fulfill practical functions but also offer opportunities to alert people to
important environmental conditions and regulate social relations, develop a wider
range of communicative acts.
Gestures Equivalent to Complete Communicative Acts
In the South African repertoire of 143 quotable gestures, 59 are the equivalent of
communicative acts rather than single words, in that they invariably convey the same
204
Figure 17
Secret lover.
complete message and speech act. When translated into spoken language, they must
be glossed with a complete sentence. Poggi labels these holophrastic gestures because
their performative function does not vary and they cannot be used as part of a communicative act (Poggi 1981; see also Kendon 1992). Similarly to Kendons (1981) analysis
of holophrastic gestures, these gestures also fall into four identical categories: gestures
of interpersonal control that regulate others behavior (42 percent of holophrastic gestures), consisting of apologies, refusals, insults, promises, and commands; statements
about oneself (12 percent); comments about others (39 percent); and comments about
states of affairs separate from the gesturer (7 percent). See Table 2.
Speakers commonly use holophrastic gestures such as the commands Come here,
Go away, Keep quiet, and Run, and states of affairs separate from the speaker
such as Its full or Its finished when speech is not possiblefor example, over long
distances, in noisy environments, or to avoid interrupting an existing interaction.
Other holophrastic gestures, particularly promises and threats, appear to physically
205
Table 2
Holophrastic gestures (Total: 59).
Interpersonal
control
Comments about
self
Comment about
others
Balls (Your balls are

getting harder)
Balls (Your balls are
hanging)
Come here
Cold (Im cold)
Arse (Fat arse)
Desire (I desire her)
Boast (She or he is
boasting)
Breasts (big breasts)
Congratulations/well
done
Drink (Give me a drink
of water)
Get out
Know (I dont know)
Give
Go away
Kick (Kick him
down/Tackle him)
Never
No (I refuse)
No (Its not me)
No (Not like that)
Open the door
Penis (Small
penis/dick)
Quiet (Be quiet)
Run
Hungry (Im hungry)
Con (She or he is
conning)
Nothing (I have
Crazy (She or he is
nothing)
crazy)
Return (Im coming
Drunk (She or he is
back)
drunk)
Surprise (Im surprised) Fancy hairstyle
Fatty
Forehead big
forehead)
Head (big head)
High society
Irritate (She or he is
irritating)
Lies (She or he is
lying)
Nose (big nose)
Finished (Its
finished/over)
Finished (Its
finished)
Many/full (There
are many/Its
full)
Perfect
Pregnant (Shes
pregnant)
Rappers
Scared (Hes scared
of girls)
Sissy (Hes a sissy)
Stink (She or he
stinks)
Stupid (She or he is
stupid)
Thin (She or he is
thin)
Tie (Little tie)
Toughie
Shut up
Sorry
Swear (I swear)
Trouble (Youre in
trouble)
True (Its true)
Volume (Turn up/down
the volume)
Wait
Yes
25
States of
affairs
23
Some of these gestures can also be used as direct insults and could be classified under gestures
of interpersonal control according to Kendons (1981) classification.
enact a communicative message as part of ritual interactional exchanges in order to

give added force or weight to what is said. Users often employ holophrastic gestures
that express comments about others as part of secret communication. These gestures
are often comments about a persons physical attributes, such as Hes got a small
penis (Figure 18), which could be classified either as an insult or as a comment about
another; or their state of mind, such as Shes crazy, Hes stupid, or Hes drunk
(Figure 19); or their behavior, such as Hes conning you or Shes telling lies. We also
206
Figure 18
Small penis.
Figure 19
Drunk.
207
Figure 20
Child.
observed that holophrastic gestures may co-occur with their spoken equivalents for
rhetorical effect.
Although lexical gestures may realize a variety of communicative acts that depend
on context for their interpretation, some lexical gestures have a related gesture that
is an established communicative actsimilar in form, but with stabilized variation
usually in the movement of the stroke or the orientation or positioning of the hand.
Poggi classifies these gestures as derived holophrastic gestures (Poggi 1983b; see also
Kendon 1992). For example, in the gesture for talk, when the gap between the opening
and closing fingers and thumb is extended, users gloss the gesture with a specific
phrase: O na wedewede You talk too much. Another example is the gesture for child,
in which the fingers and thumb of an upturned hand touch at the tips in the gesture
form known as a finger bunch (Kendon 1995) (Figure 20). Often used in conjunction
with speech to indicate the age of a child by positioning the hand at a certain distance
from the ground to show the childs height, this gesture also conveys the insult Youre
a small boy when held in front of the user at hip height and moved to and fro in a
sideways motion.
These examples suggest that quotable gestures may undergo various processes of
derivation and development. It is possible that some holophrastic gestures can be
derived from lexical gestures when a particular communicative act performed by the
lexical gesture becomes sufficiently common and is thus established to fulfill a regular
communicative need. On the other hand, the opposite can occurfor example, a
holophrastic gesture such as Youre a small boy can come to be used in conjunction
with and independently of speech, as a gesture to indicate a childs age or to specify
the particular child to whom the speaker is referring by indicating her or his height.
208
Concept Gestures
In the South African repertoire, six gestures are similar to lexical gestures in that
they can convey a number of communicative acts when used on their own and can
function as components of a message. However, unlike lexical gestures, the meanings
conveyed are less closely tied to specific spoken words or expressions and express
abstract concepts. Kendon (2004), who has identified similar gestures in use among
southern Italian gesturers, calls these concept gestures. Sherzer (1972, 1991) has published analyses of two gestures, the pointed-lip gesture among the Kuna Indians and
the thumbs-up gesture in Brazil, that appear to be similar to concept gestures. Such
gestures express a range of polysemous meanings rather than the near-synonymous
meanings of lexical gestures, in that the concept gestures can be related to a core
underlying semantic concept (Sherzer 1991).
The most prominent concept gesture and one of the most commonly occurring
quotable gestures in the South African repertoire is the clever gesture, in which the
first and fourth fingers of the hand are extended toward the eyes and moved diagonally up and down across the face (shown earlier in Figure 1). Commonly glossed
as clever or streetwise, this gesture can express a range of meanings in everyday
communication independently of speech: You are streetwise, Look, Wake up, Be
alert, Watch out, I want to see you, Hes observing/watching, or I see you (as a
greeting). It also co-occurs with spoken terms that describe the characteristics of someone who is streetwise, such as witty, quick-thinking, and entertaining. An analysis of
this gesture in situ shows that all of these meanings are related to the underlying
core concept of seeing, and the range of communicative acts or functions it fulfills
are acts of approval or disapproval expressing the core interactional function of inclusion or exclusion that distinguishes insider and outsider status within township
communities at various levels (Brookes 2001). Seeing, together with related notions
of being forward-looking, progressive or up-to-date in outlook, or with it, embodied in the township term clever and its gestural form, is a key cultural value in black
urban township society and is the central characteristic of modern African identity.
This is in contrast to what is considered to be the non-seeing, backward, and primitive African, who maintains a traditional, rural, tribal way of life. The latter concept
is captured in the term bare, commonly glossed as stupid, originally from an old
Afrikaans word baar raw native, and expressed in a quotable gestural form in which
the hand, with palm toward the gesturer, is drawn diagonally downward across the
face. The term applies to any kind of behavior of which a person disapproves and
that by implication is not part of the modern township identity. The clever gesture
is a focused expression of this key social division within township society between
the modern progressive and backward primitive African social categories and
reflects a key ideological concern or division within black South African society more
broadly (Brookes 2001). Its role in expressing a key concern and in regulating social relations, particularly among young men, for whom projecting a city-slick and
streetwise identity is critical, can go some way to explaining the extent of its semantic
and functional range, suggesting that at least in some cases, key ideological concerns may have an impact on quotable status and a gestures semantico-grammatical
nature.
Another prominent example in the South African repertoire is the thumbs-up gesture. As it does in Brazil (Sherzer 1991), in South Africa this gesture expresses a
range of meanings related to the underlying meaning of good or positive and
the core interactional function social obligation met. Sherzer relates the use of
the thumbs-up gesture to a key ideological concern with maintaining a positive
and supportive public self-image in a conflict-ridden society. In the larger sociocultural context of Brazilian life, he suggests that the frequent use of the gesture
is an overt symbol and expressive marker of positive linkage between individuals
(Sherzer 1991:196) that mediates public social relations in a context of extreme social,
racial, and economic disparities as well as violencenot unlike the South African
context.
209
Figure 21
Thought.
Other concept gestures in this repertoire include gestures for thought, friendship,
unity, and strength (Figures 21, 22, 23, and 24). However, these are less common
in everyday communication than the clever and thumbs-up gestures. The range of
meanings they convey is more limited, and some meanings are less well established
independently of speech. For example, the gesture for strength, in which either one or
both forearms are bent upward with knuckles facing outward can convey Shes or hes
strong, Show some strength/power, Force him or her, or Keep at it (referring to an
exacting task). Unlike the clever gesture, which can also have a range of meanings,
users, when asked to gloss the meaning of the strength gesture, are less likely to
provide glosses of the latter three meanings unless given sufficient contextual factors
or spoken language that suggest these interpretations. Similarly to lexical gestures,
concept gestures also appear to vary in their range of meanings and independence
from speech.
Kendon (2004) suggests that there are many gestures of this type among speakers
in Naples. Although they make up only a small proportion of this repertoire, some
play an important function in symbolizing key ideological concerns and marking
social relations, as is the case with the thumbs-up and clever gestures. The next
step is to determine whether similar proportions of concept gestures exist in other
repertoires, whether the same concepts develop quotable gestural equivalents and
have similar forms in different repertoires, and whether some concept gestures are
focused expressions of key ideological concerns in other gestural communities. It
would be interesting to know what concepts in other societies acquire the same degree
of social significance that the clever and thumbs-up gestures have acquired in South
Africa and Brazil.
Comparisons with Other Repertoires
Since few studies of quotable gestures are explicit about the methodologies used
to identify them, we can make only tentative comparisons with other repertoires.
210
Figure 22
Friendship.
Figure 23
Unity.
211
Figure 24
Strength.
Kendon (1981) compares six published lists of quotable gestures from the United
States, Columbia, Iran, southern Italy, France, and Kenya. Gestures of interpersonal
control (greetings, commands, requests, insults, and threats), gestures expressing
ones own physical or mental state, and evaluative responses to a third person account
for 80 percent of the gestures in these repertoires, with one exception, where they account for 66 percent. Gestures that are labels for objects or actions are absent from the
southern Italian, French, and Kenyan repertoires and account for only 4.6 percent of
the U.S., 6.4 percent of the Columbian, and 29 percent of the Iranian repertoires. On
the basis of this comparative analysis, Kendon (1992) hypothesizes that most quotable
gestures in any given repertoire are likely to be holophrastic. However, as he points
out, existing data from these published lists does not allow us to determine lexicality,
and his prediction could therefore be incorrect.
In the repertoire presented here, lexical gestures account for 55 percent, holophrastic gestures (interpersonal control, expressions of personal physical and mental states,
states of affairs, and evaluative comments about others) for 41 percent, and concept
gestures for 4 percent of the gestural repertoire. If lexical and concept gestures are
excluded, gestures of interpersonal control constitute 42 percent, the largest proportion of quotable gestures; and gestures of interpersonal control, comments about self,
and comments about others make up 93 percent of the gestural repertoire. These
proportions are similar to Kendons (1981) findings.
The difference in the proportion of lexical gestures between this repertoire and
others may have several possible explanations. Apart from the inclusion of deictics,
which other studies sometimes exclude, in order to identify conventional gestural
212
forms this study used systematic recording and observation of spontaneous communicative situations, previously published repertoires, and items and concepts that are
common or important in the cultural context of the Gauteng township. Other studies
may have taken a less comprehensive approach, relying mainly on native gesturers
explication of their own knowledge of gesture. Reliance on native gesturers recall of
their own repertoires may have led to some lexical gestures being classified as complete communicative acts. In elicitation interviews, we found that native gesturers
sometimes attributed a single complete message to gestures that in fact had multiple
meanings and performative functions we later observed in spontaneous communicative situations.
This study does not classify as holophrastic established communicative acts linked
to lexical gestures, though other studies may have done so. Even with the exclusion of
the five deictics from the lexical repertoire and the inclusion of four derived holophrastic gestures, the proportion of lexical gestures remains larger than in previous work.
Only the collection of new material can confirm whether the findings here are indicative of a general pattern or whether there are substantial differences among repertoires
in the proportion of holophrastic, lexical, and other categories of gesture. Such differences, if they exist, would then require further comparative studies of what kinds of
communicative tasks these quotable gestures fulfill in other cultures (Kendon 1992).
Quotability and Change
Some quotable gestures appear to be relatively stable over long periods of time
(Morris et al. 1979), but quotable gesture repertoires nonetheless do not remain fixed
either in form or meaning. Although many gestures in the South African repertoire
have remained stable in both aspects over many years,14 the data show that some
gestures have fallen into disuse, new ones appear to be emerging, and, in one instance,
a new gestural form is in the process of replacing the old one for the same meaning.
Of gestures that have fallen into disuse, consultants identified two in particular.
Demise of the gesture for a long-bladed jungle knife, a weapon commonly in use
during the late 1980s, coincided with a rapid increase in the use of guns in the early
1990s. The gesture for an AK-47 machine gun, a feature of civil conflict in the early
1990s in many South African townships, saw less use following abatement of civil
conflict after South Africas first democratic elections in 1994, when wide use of
AK-47s also died off.
Data from elicitation interviews and decoding tests also identified one case of an
emerging quotable gesture during the period of this research. Young men described a
gesture that depicts the act of chipping off the engine number of a stolen car. Hijacking
and stealing cars has become endemic in the last 15 years in South Africa. Commonly
used with the spoken phrase O ya kokotela Hes hammering, in this gesture one
hand depicts the holding of a chisel while the knuckle of the forefinger of the other
hand moves up and down in a hitting motion. Among male consultants who took the
decoding test, 67 percent recognized this gesture; only 11 percent of women recognized
it. Male interviewees over 30 years old did not know this gesture. Methodologically,
comparing knowledge of gestures across age and gender may be a useful indicator
of a gestures emerging or established status where gesture use varies according to
these parameters.
In May 2002, another new quotable gesture, that for HIV, emerged.15 Commonly
referred to in speech as Amagama amathathu the three letters, HIV is depicted in gestural form with the last three fingers extended and the thumb and forefinger meeting
at the tip to form an O shape. It is usually held close to the body just below chest
level, with the O shape perpendicular to the torso and parallel to the ground. Observations of this gesture in use show that participants in a conversation often use it as
a substitute for the acronym HIV when discussing whether someone has died of this
virus, particularly in public spaces where they are in close proximity to others, or as
a secret aside in a group conversation to ask whether a person has HIV or has died of
its consequences.
213
Figure 25
Fuck (old gesture).
It would also appear that gestural forms change over time. During the period of
this research, a new gesture for fuck (shown earlier in Figure 15) emerged and for
some time coexisted with the old gesture for the same meaning (Figure 25) before the
old gesture fell away. In elicitation interviews, young men provided the new form.
When asked about the old form, they indicated that this gesture was now common
knowledge even among their female peers. Although the old gesture was still in use,
male peers would view a young man who made use of the form as backward and
stupid; such use would result in considerable loss of status. In the decoding test,
100 percent of men and 89 percent of women knew the old form; 78 percent of men
and only 56 percent of women recognized the new form. However, so-called colored
men (the name given to people of mixed race under apartheid) report that the new
form is in fact an old gesture used for many years among men from former colored
areas and refers to petting and kissing that does not necessarily include sex.16 It is
possible that because the old form was too well known, users either appropriated
the new form from a coexisting gestural repertoire or revived an old gestural form,
perhaps originally used before black and colored South Africans were forced into
separate areas under apartheid.
Conclusion
Although the data collected for this study suggest three categories of quotable gestures in the South African repertoire, close analysis of gestures in situ shows that
within each category, gestures vary considerably in their range of meanings and functions. In the category of lexical gestures, gestures such as that for sleep function as
214
a statement, a question, or even a suggestion, depending on context, and refer only

to a single activity or entity. In the same category, the talk gesture expresses a much
greater range of meanings with varying degrees of synonymyfor example, gossiping, while also having a derived holophrastic gesture, You talk too much. In the
category of concept gestures, gestures such as the clever gesture have a wider range
of meanings than lexical gestures and these meanings are polysemous, although the
clever gesture also expresses synonymous meanings in relation to the literal meaning see. It is also possible to consider as derived holophrastic gestures some of the
clever gestures most common and well-established meanings, such as Hes streetwise, Watch out, or its use as a greeting.
The difference among these three gestural examples appears to be in their range of
meanings and functions, the number of derived holophrastic gestures that develop,
and the extent to which the gesture expands to express more abstract but related
concepts. At what point a gesture becomes conceptual rather than lexical is difficult
to determine. It is unclear, for example, whether the gesture for down, where both
hands move up and down in front of the stomach, with palms toward the floor,
should fall within the category of lexical or concept gesture. Independently of speech,
it can mean Sit down, Be quiet, Calm down, or Relax, although the last meaning
occurs more frequently in conjunction with its spoken equivalent. The difficulty of
categorizing gestures like this one suggests that instead of drawing sharp distinctions
among categories, it might be more productive to think of quotable gestures along a
continuum based on their range of meanings and functions.
Similarly, a categorical distinction between lexical and holophrastic gestures may
obscure the relationship between various gestural forms and the way in which they
function. As described above, a number of lexical gestures also have related established performative functions that can be considered holophrastic. Payrato (1993)
questions the usefulness of the lexical/holophrastic distinction and suggests that
lexical gestures always function holophrastically in actual use, in that they convey
illocutionary utterances. He also points out that some holophrastic gestures can function lexically in a linguistic frame such as John is [gesture for crazy]. Moreover, the
distinction between lexical and holophrastic gestures does not account for certain instances Poggi describes in southern Italy, where, for example, a gesture such as a jerk
of the thumb may function either as a holophrase in order to hitchhike, or as a lexical
pointing gesture (Poggi 1983a; see also Kendon 1992).
Similar questions have been raised about the usefulness of making a categorical
distinction between quotable gestures that are highly conventionalized, can substitute for speech, and are easily recallable, and gestures that are improvisatory within
a set of cultural conventions, co-occur with speech, and cannot be fully understood
separately from the spoken language of which they are a part. Although scholars of
gesture often treat these two categories as distinct, Kendon (1995) shows in a study
of conversations in coastal Campania that speakers use both conventional and improvisatory gestures in similar ways. For example, he shows how the mano a borsa
purse hand gesture, which can function independently of speech, also functions as
a discourse marker in conjunction with speech. He suggests that gestures vary in
their degree of conventionalization and states that emblems are simply those gestural expressions that, for reasons that are not at all well understood in most cases,
have become stable in form and tend to be more readily recalled as a result (Kendon
1997:119).
Similarly in this repertoire, quotable gestures function in the same way as less
conventionalized gestures in conjunction with spoken language. Quotable gestures
perform a variety of functions, including either visually representing what is said
literally, or giving expression to abstract concepts (Haviland 1993); contributing to
making spoken expressions more specific (McNeill 1987, 1992); providing additional
information or ideas beyond what is conveyed through speech (McNeill 1992); marking aspects of discourse structure or the illocutionary force of utterances (Kendon
1995); and managing interactions. (See Kendon 1997 for a review of studies on the
215
relationship between gesture and speech.) Quotable gestures also expand semantically in conjunction with speech. For example, the clever gesture occurs with a wide
range of spoken meanings, including witty, quick-thinking, and entertaining, all
characteristics of being clever streetwise. Similarly to the strength gesture (discussed
above), these meanings vary in their level of detachment from speech. At the same
time, the pragmatic gesture in which the side of the right hand hits the palm of the
left hand marks the illocutionary force of an utterance as a statement of fact and can
also express the notion of giving force to what is said without speech; there are two
possible related quotable gestures of similar form for cut and kick him down or
tackle (in soccer). These examples suggest that drawing sharp distinctions between
gestures on the basis of their level of independence from speech may obscure relationships between them as well as continuities in function and meaning and how they
might originate and develop (Kendon 1992).
More recent studies have begun to move away from gestural typologies and look
at the relationship among similar forms of gesture and their functions (Payrato 2003),
rather than making distinctions between lexical and holophrastic or between quotable
gestures and others that are seemingly less detachable from speech. Payrato suggests
that emblems (or autonomous, quotable, conventional gestures) can be considered:
(a) as members of categories defined by prototypical relations and family resemblances; (b) which are holistically, contextually interpreted as (c) communicative acts;
(d) according to principles of relevance (Payrato 2003:80).
We might extend Payratos
approach to the study of emblems (i.e., quotable gestures) to include all gestures in a communicative repertoire, not just those that are
detachable from speech. In this way, we might begin to understand derivational processes and different paths of development. However, identifying gestural repertoires
and beginning to understand gestural derivation and development will require a
common methodology and systematic analytic approach that maps form and function based on actual instances of use.
Examination of the semantic content of the quotable gestural repertoire of the
Gauteng township in this study provides an overview of the gestural meanings that
this community of users share. At the same time, this work has identified the types
of communicative acts associated with quotable gestures. Similarly to previous findings (Kendon 1981), we have found that gestures associated with fixed communicative acts express acts of interpersonal control, statements about others, statements
about the self, and statements about states of affairs separate from the speaker. Gestures that fulfill different communicative acts depending on context are able to express a variety of speech acts within the two types of basic speech rolesgiving
and demanding either goods and services or informationthat underlie more specific types described above, which have become established within the repertoire.
For example, the money gesture can request money, ask for information about
money, comment on others lack or accumulation of money, state that a person has
no money, and so on. Comparative analysis across repertoires may reveal the extent
to which gestural repertoires cover the same semantic content. From comparative
work such as Morris et al. 1979 and Kendon 1981, we may find that meanings such
as Come here, telephone, and money are common across many repertoires (although the gestural form may differ), while other meanings may diverge as they
express specific features, concerns, and functions of different sociocommunicative
contexts.
Another aspect of gestural communication that could provide insight into the development of gestures is the interpersonal or relational dimension of gestural use, to
use Michael Hallidays (1985) terms. In other words, what relationships do uses of
gesture enact among participants in particular situations? How does social proximity
influence gestural behavior? For example, with whom and under what circumstances
can a gesture be used to make a request; how do users mark politeness in gestural
requests; what kind of illocutionary force does the use of a gesture rather than speech
convey in making requests; and what interpersonal meaning does such use express?
216
At the same time, what do gesturers give off (Goffman 1963:13) through their uses
of gesture?
This last question is closely linked with the role of gestural use in expressing identity, an area that remains relatively unexplored but is essential for understanding
the meanings and functions that become expressed through gestures in everyday
life. Sherzer (1972, 1991) and Henk Driessen (1992) address this question by locating their analysis of gestural use within networks of social relationships and the
cultural notions that shape and sustain these networks and provide identity to the
actors involved (Driessen 1992:237). Driessens work on the use of quotable gestures to articulate dominant notions of masculinity in drinking establishments in rural Andalusia demonstrates how bodily movement and gestures, particularly iconic
forms of sexual penetration, become formalized in ritual exchanges that sustain male
sociability and notions of male superiority. It is this analytic approach at the level of
interaction located within the sociocultural context that may allow for comparisons
of gestural functions and roles across repertoires more meaningful than what microlevel semantico-grammatical analysis permits. Further work needs to consider the
meanings expressed within the interactive situation of which the gesture is a part, in
order to account more fully for what comes to be expressed in gestural form and how
gesture, as an expressive medium, may be similarly and differently employed across
various social contexts. Such work also requires comparing examples of spontaneous
gestural communication across various gestural communities.
Finally, the above approach may further our understanding of how gestural use as
part of bodily management conveys social meaning in the construction of identities.
In the South African township context, gestural behavior plays a key role in the articulation of male youth identities, not only in conjunction with male youth language, but
also as part of bodily management in the articulation of youth subcultural styles. Bodily movement and gestural style symbolize subcultural affiliation, articulate notions
of township masculinity, and express an affiliation with the modern urban township
identity. Simultaneously, for those who are not part of this male youth culture, what is
seen as excessive use of gesture in conjunction with a particular bodily style symbolizes disrespect and delinquency in township society. Not often considered in gestural
research, these aspects of gestural use need further study if we are to fully account
for cultural differences in the way gestures develop and function, not only as a communicative system, but also as a form of social expression sustained by social norms
and practices.17
Notes
Acknowledgments. The author wishes to thank Elizabeth Keating, Llus Payrato,
and two
anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions on earlier drafts
of this article. I also wish to thank the consultants in my research site for their participation in
this study as well as Khethiwe Marais of Afrophone for the translations.
1. My use of the term iconic follows McNeills (1992), in that gestures closely resemble
semantic content.
2. Kendon (1992) points out that the term emblem suggests that such gestures are semiotically
all of the same type. Rather, their key common characteristic is quotability, hence the term
quotable gestures used throughout this article.
3. Ekman and Friesen (1969), Poyatos (1975), Kendon (1981), and Payrato (2001) have written
specifically about research methodologies on emblems.
4. The nine languages are Ndebele, North Sotho, South Sotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda,
Xhosa, and Zulu.
5. My research assistant and I have observed deaf people making use of this gestural repertoire to communicate (with varying success) with hearing people. To what extent these quotable
gestures relate to features of South African Sign Language within the same community remains
an important question that requires a study in its own right.
6. Iscamtho utilizes as its grammatical base the most common local language(s) spoken in
the townships, most often Zulu as the majority language, but also South Sotho and Tswana.
217
The grammatical base may vary within one township and across townships, depending on the
majority language spoken in a particular area. Iscamthos rapidly changing lexicon is either
coined or drawn from all nine African languages as well as English and Afrikaans, all of which
are in daily use in South African townships in Gauteng.
7. This male urban counterculture has its roots in the conditions created by apartheid, in
which youth had few opportunities and lived in circumstances of extreme oppression. This
situation created the need for an alternative social reality with its own values, rewards, and paths
to acceptance, which shaped alternative identities for young men. Halliday (1978) suggests that
it is under these conditions that antilanguages emerge.
8. Within the broad male youth counterculture, various subcultures emerge from time to time
that give expression to different social values and aspirations (see Glaser 2000 for a historical
perspective on male youth township subcultures). These subcultures are marked by musical
and clothing tastes, communicative style in the use of Iscamtho and gesture, as well as bodily
movement.
9. Although Stokoe and Kuschel 1979 is primarily intended for the elicitation of sign languages used by the deaf, its comprehensiveness helped to ensure coverage of possible concepts
and cultural categories that might occur in gestural form.
10. Although 290 is a substantial number of conventional gestures, this corpus does not
necessarily represent all the gestures in use in this community. Moreover, gestures do not
remain fixed (see below).
11. The intention was to have ten female and ten male participants, but one participant was
absent in both group tests.
12. Consultants had completed at least ten years of schooling. It was a relatively easy task
for consultants to give a written gloss and to tick whether men or women, adults or youth used
a particular gesture.
13. Direct requests using quotable gestures are acceptable among ones peer group and
to those younger than oneself. Further data is necessary to determine the appropriateness of
gestural requests and how they may incorporate some form of politeness marking across age,
gender, level of familiarity, and situation.
14. This gesture could be classified as an insult if used directly to a recipient or as a comment
about others if referring to a third person. A clear distinction between these two categories is
not always possible.
15. For example, men in this community over the age of 60 years recall their use of the
clever gesture as young men.
16. I am indebted to Daniel Low-Beer of Cambridge University for alerting me to the emergence of this gesture.
17. I am indebted to Greg Ruiters at the University of the Witwatersrand for alerting me to
the use of this gesture in colored communities.
References Cited
Barakat, Robert A.
1973 Arabic Gestures. Journal of Popular Culture 6(4):749792.
Brewer, W. D.
1951 Patterns of Gesture among the Levantine Arabs. Amercian Anthropologist 53(2):232
237.
Brookes, Heather J.
2001 O Clever. Hes Streetwise. When Gestures Become Quotable: The Case of the Clever
Gesture. Gesture 1(2):167184.
Calbris, Genevi`eve
1990 The Semiotics of French Gestures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Creider, Chet A.
1977 Toward a Description of East African Gestures. Sign Language Studies 14:120.
Diadori, Pierangela
1990 Senza Parole: 100 Gesti degli Italiani (Without Words: 100 Gestures of the Italians).
Rome: Bonacci.
Driessen, Henk
1992 Gestured Masculinity: Body and Sociability in Rural Andalusia. In A Cultural History
of Gesture. Jan Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg, eds. Pp. 237249. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
218
Efron, David
1941 Gesture and Environment. New York: Kings Crown Press.
1972[1941] Gesture, Race, and Culture. The Hague: Mouton.
Ekman, Paul, and Wallace Friesen
1969 The Repertoire of Non-Verbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage and Coding. Semiotica 1(1):4998.
Glaser, Clive
2000 Bo-Tsotsi: The Youth Gangs of Soweto, 19351976. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goffman, Erving
1963 Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York:
Free Press.
Green, Jerald R.
1968 A Gesture Inventory for Teaching Spanish. New York: Clinton Books.
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1978 Anti-Languages. American Anthropologist 78(3):570584.
1985 An Introduction to Systemic Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Haviland, John B.
1993 Anchoring, Iconicity and Orientation in Guugu Yimithirr Pointing Gestures. Journal
of Linguistic Anthropology 3:345.
Johnson, H. G., Paul Ekman, and Wallace Friesen
1975 Communicative Body Movements: American Emblems. Semiotica 15(4):335353.
Kaulfers, Walter V.
1931 Curiosities of Colloquial Gestues. Hispania 14:249264.
Kendon, Adam
1981 Geography of Gesture. Semiotica 37(12):129163.
1992 Some Recent Work from Italy on Quotable Gestures (Emblems). Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 2(1):92107.
1995 Gestures as Illocutionary and Discourse Structure Markers in Southern Italian Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 23:247279.
1997 Gesture. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:109128.
2004 Some Contrasts in Gesticulation in Neapolitan Speakers and Speakers in Northamptonshire. In The Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gesture. Cornelia Muller
and Roland
Posner, eds. Pp. 173193. Berlin: Weidler.
McNeill, David
1987 Psycholinguistics: A New Approach. New York: Harper & Row.
1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Meo Zilio, Giovanni, and Silvia Mejia
1980 Diccionario de Gestos: Espana
e Hispanoamerica (Dictionary of Gestures: Spain and
Latin America). Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
Monahan, Barbara
1983 A Dictionary of Russian Gesture. Ann Arbor, MI: Hermitage.
Morris, Desmond, Peter Collett, Peter Marsh, and Mary OShaughnessy
1979 Gestures: Their Origins and Distribution. London: Jonathan Cape.
Munari, Bruno
1963 Supplemento al Dizionario Italiano (Supplement to the Italian Dictionary). Milan:
Muggiani.
Payrato,
Llus
1993 A Pragmatic View on Autonomous Gestures: A First Repertoire of Catalan Emblems.
Journal of Pragmatics 20:193216.
2001 Methodological Remarks on the Study of Emblems: The Need for Common Elicitation
Procedures. In Oralite et Gestualite: Interactions et Comportements Multimodaux dans
la Communication (Orality and Gesture: Multimodal Interactions and Behavior in Communication). Christian Cave, Isabella Guatella, and Serge Santi, eds. Pp. 262265. Paris:
LHarmattan.
2003 What Does The Same Gesture Mean?: Emblematic Gestures from Some CognitiveLinguistic Theories. In Gestures: Meaning and Use. Monica Rector, Isabella Poggi, and
Nadine Trigo, eds. Pp. 7381. Porto, Portugal: Universidade Fernando Pessoa.
Poggi, Isabella
1981 Le Interiezioni: Studio del Linguaggio e Analisi delle Mente (Interjections: The Study
of Language and the Analysis of the Mind). Toringo: Boringhieri.
219
1983a La Mano a Borsa: Analisi Semantica di Un Gesto Emblematico Olofrastico (The Purse
Hand: Semantic Analysis of a Holophrastic Emblematic Gesture). In Communicare Senza
Parole (Communicating without Words). Grazia Attili and Pio E. Ricci Bitti, eds. Pp. 219
238. Rome: Bulzoni.
1983b Le Analogie tra Gesti e Interiezioni: Alcune Osservazione Preliminari (Analogies
between Gestures and Interjections: Some Preliminary Observations). In Communicare
Nella Vita Quotidiana (Communicating in Daily Life). Franca Orletti, ed. Pp. 117133.
Bologna: Il Mulino.
1987 Frasi e Parole con La Voce e con Le Mani (Phrases and Words with the Voice and the
Hands). In Le Parole nella Testa: Guida a unEducazione Linguistica Cognitivista (Words in
the Head: Guide to Cognitive Linguistic Training). Isabella Poggi, ed. Pp. 329338. Bologna:
Il Mulino.
Poggi, Isabella, and Marina Zomparelli
1987 Lessico e Grammatica nei Gesti e nelle Parole (Lexicon and Grammar in Gestures and
Words). In Le Parole nella Testa: Guida a unEducazione Linguistica Cognitivista (Words in
the Head: Guide to Cognitive Linguistic Training). Isabella Poggi, ed. Pp. 291328. Bologna:
Il Mulino.
Poyatos, Fernando
1975 Gesture Inventories: Fieldwork Methodology and Problems. Semiotica 13:199227.
Rector, Monica
1986 Emblems in Brazilian Culture. In Iconicity: Essays on the Nature of Culture. Paul
Bouissac, Michael Herzfeld, and Roland Posner, eds. Pp. 447462. Tubingen:
Stauffenburg.
Saitz, Robert L., and Edward J. Cervenka
1972 Handbook of Gestures: Columbia and the United States. The Hague: Mouton.
Sherzer, Joel
1972 Verbal and Non-Verbal Deixis: The Pointed Lip Gesture Among the San Blas Cuna.
Language in Society 2(1):117131.
1991 The Brazilian Thumbs-Up Gesture. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 1(2):189197.
Sparhawk, Carol M.
1978 Contrastive-Identificational Features of Persian Gestures. Semiotica 24(12):4986.
Stokoe, William, and Rolf Kuschel
1979 A Field Guide for Sign Language Research. Silver Spring, MD: Linstock Press.
Wylie, Laurence
1977 Beaux Gestes: A Guide to French Body Talk. Cambridge, MA: Undergraduate Press.
Child, Youth, and Family Development

Human Sciences Research Council
Private Bag X41
Pretoria 0001, South Africa
HBrookes@hsrc.ac.za
Appendix: Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures
Key:
Approximate English equivalent {underlying concept} [additional information]
(Gloss, if single communicative act) Approximate Zulu (Z), South Sotho (S) or
Iscamtho (Is) equivalent Verbal description.
Arrest phakata (Is) Undersides of both wrists are tapped together. Hands are made
into fists.
Arse (Fat arse) dibono tse kgolo (S) Cupped hand is held out behind buttocks.
Balls (Your balls are hanging) Ulengisitse masende (S) Forearm is held up. Hand,
with fingers loosely splayed, dangles and swings sideways.
Balls (Your balls are getting harder) Aya tiyatiya (S) One hand is held up with palm
facing upward. Slightly curved and spread fingers are moved in and out as if
squeezing.
Beard ntshebe (Z) Fingers and thumb on each cheek stroke downward once.
Beat keqa (Is) First finger is flicked against thumb and second finger, which are held
together at the tips.
Beat shaya (Z) shapa (S) Fist is held up with knuckles pointing away from the gesturer.
220
Beat shaya (Z) shapa (S) One fist is hit diagonally downward into palm of other hand.
Beer [home-brewed] sqo/shake-shake (Is) Hands as if holding a large pot on either
side, rotated gently as if mixing the contents.
Bewitch loya (S)(Z) Wrist, with palm facing up and fingers slightly curved, is placed
just below mouth level. Gesturer blows across hand.
Boast (He or she is boasting) Ushaya dithopa (Is) Both hands are held up. Second
fingers and thumbs make clicking sounds.
Break phula (Z) Fists are held together in front of the torso and turned sideways so
knuckles meet as if breaking something in two.
Breasts (Big breasts) matswele a kgolo (S) Hands are held over chest.
Burn tjhesa (S) lighta (Is) First finger and thumb are held together at tips as if holding
a match and are drawn along palm of other hand. Then the hand holding the
match makes a throwing action.
Cap kepisi (S) Forefinger and thumb touch each other in front of the forehead.
Car transi (Is) Fist is held up and out in front and moved sideways left and right
several times.
Cards amacardi (Z) dicards (S) Palm is held up with fingers curved. Fingers of other
hand are drawn across the palm perpendicular to the fingers.
Child ntwana (Is) Fingers of one hand are brought together at the tips pointing
upward.
Chop [change the engine number of a stolen car] kokotela (Is) Fist with knuckle of
first finger protruding points downward and moves up and down from the wrist
toward the other hand. Forefinger and thumb of the other hand make a circle.
Remaining fingers of this hand hold the same curve as the first finger.
Clever {perception or seeing} streetwise (Is) Hand with first and fourth fingers
extended, pointing toward the eyes, moves sideways to and fro at a slight angle
across the face. Sometimes pointed away from the gesturer.
Cock [a gun] bridga (Is) Thumb and forefinger hold extended first and second
fingers of other hand and move back toward thumb.
Cold (Im or Its cold) Ho a batha (S) Hands rub outer side of opposite upper arms.
Come here Zwakala (Is) Curved hand makes upward curve toward gesturer.
Con (She or he is conning) Uyashayashaya (Is) Hands, one in front of the other and
parallel to torso, rotate around each other several times.
Congratulations or well done Shine (S)(Z) Hands with palms facing forward and
fingers slightly splayed held up at head height and rotated slightly from the
wrist.
Cook pheka (Z) Hand, as if holding a spoon, is moved in a circle.
Crazy (She or he is crazy) Uyasika/ringtinta (Is) Forefinger points toward head and
rotates.
Cry heyla (Is) Extended first and fourth fingers of one hand with second and third
fingers bent are drawn from the eyes down the face.
Cut hlepula (Z) Side of hand with fingers extended is tapped across palm of other
hand.
Desire (I desire her) Ke ya mokgalla (S) Tongue moves across upper lip.
Dice madice (S) Fist held up as if holding dice and shaken back and forth.
Dig or laborer peta or mapetane (S) Hands as if holding a spade make digging action.
Down fatse (S) One or both hands, fingers extended and palms down, are held out in
front and moved up and down several times.
Drink or alcohol or beer kgasa (Is) Extended first finger, with thumb extended at
right angles, points diagonally downward and moves up and down from wrist
toward the other hand. Forefinger and thumb of the other hand make a circle.
Remaining fingers of this hand hold the same curve as the forefinger.
Drink (Give me a drink of water) Phuza (Z) Hand as if holding a glass is tilted
toward the mouth once.
Drunk (She or he is drunk) Udakiwe (Is) Side of curved first finger is drawn across
the forehead.
221
Eat or food mapapa (Is) Two fists with thumbs extended move alternately backward
and forward to the mouth.
Fancy hairstyle mashwengshwang (Is) Hand with fingers extended makes two curves
upward from the forehead.
Father [male elder] i-taima (Is) Side of knuckle of forefinger and thumb on either side
of chin stroke chin downward once or twice.
Fatty sedudla (S) Curved arms held out to the sides.
Fight lwa (Z) lwana (S) Two fists move back and forth as if fighting.
Finished [referring to an event] (Its finished or over) Ho fedile (S) Hands held out
with palms down move inward over each other and back out again.
Finished (Its all finished) E fedile (S) Forefinger or fingertips of one hand are drawn
quickly across mouth. Gesturer blows, producing a sound as the finger(s) block
the stream of air.
Forehead (Big forehead) sphongo (S) Curved hand traces curve downward over
forehead.
Friendship bobra (Is) Sides of extended first fingers of each hand are tapped together
several times.
Fuck [old gesture] nkawuza (Is) Back of hand hits upturned palm of other hand
several times.
Fuck [new gesture] kama (Is) Elbow is bent with forearm held up. Hand at about
shoulder level. Fingers and thumb are loosely splayed. Hand makes slight
twisting movement from the wrist.
Fuck or sex hlatha or mdavazo (Is) A fist with thumb tip between knuckles of first
and second fingers.
Get out Phuma (Z) First finger extended and moved across in front of the body and
away in the appropriate direction.
Girl or girlfriend mtwana (Is) Thumb touches each breast starting with the breast
opposite to the hand being used, and then touches the first breast again.
Give zwakadisa (Z) Hand is held out with palm up. Fingers are slightly curved and
moved toward the gesturer a few times.
Go vaya (Is) Hand, fingers extended together with palm facing gesturer, moves up
and down once or twice in the appropriate direction.
Go away vaya (Is) Hand, fingers down, is flung outward away from the gesturer and
up.
Gun or shoot ibagaza or bamuza (Is) First and second fingers are extended at right
angle to thumb pointing upward. Third and fourth fingers are bent inward
against palm.
Haircut icuti (Z) cut (S) Flat hand moves along the side of the head from back to
front, and then over the top of the head from front to back.
Hat [wool hat] stragel (Is) Both hands as if holding a hat make slight movement
downward on each side of the head.
Head (Big head) hloho e kgolo (S) Hands with fingers splayed are held out on each
side of head.
High society top shayela (Is) One or both hands with palms down and fingers
splayed are held up in front on either side of the gesturer, a little higher than the
head, and moved sideways.
Hit continuously shaya (Z) First finger of one hand clasps knuckle of second finger
of other hand and pulls several times, making a clicking sound.
Hungry (Im hungry) Ke papehile (Is) Two fists with thumbs extended toward
stomach move alternately in and out.
I or me mina (Z) First finger or flat hand touches chest.
Irritate (She or he is irritating or forward) Uyaphapha (Is, literal meaning: She or he
is flying) Arms bent up at elbows. Hands, hanging loosely with fingers splayed,
are held out to the side just below shoulder height and flapped up and down like
the wings of a bird.
222
Jacket or coat or jersey islamba (Is) Shoulders, bent arms, and fists make movement
of putting on jacket.
Kick (Kick him down or Tackle him) Kapa (Is) Side of hand hits palm of other hand
at a perpendicular.
Kill boda (Is) Forefinger of one hand moves across throat, continuing into a vertical
point toward the sky if the person referred to is dead.
Know (I dont know) Angazi (Z) Hands are held out with palms up and shoulders
slightly lifted.
Lies (She or he is lying) Uyaphotha (Is) Forefinger or fingers with palm downward
wave up and down in front of mouth.
Lip balm setshaso (S) First finger and thumb touching at tips are drawn across the
lips.
Little (A little) ncane (Z) First finger and thumb touch at tips. Rest of the hand is in
the shape of a fist facing upward.
Lock or key khiya or sekhiya (S) Hand in fist with thumb resting on the side of the
knuckle of the first finger. Hand makes turning action from the wrist.
Many or full (There are many or Its full [of people]) Ba baie/Kuthayedile (Is) Open
palm of one hand hits side of fist of the other hand several times.
Marijuana izol (Is) insangu (Z) Tips of fingers of one hand make small movements on
palm of other hand.
Marijuana or crush crusha (Is) Side of hand, held perpendicular against palm of
other hand, rubs back and forth along palm.
Marijuana or smoke izol or ziyasha (Is) Hand is held in front of mouth. Fingers are
extended with thumb touching forefinger underneath. Hand is moved back and
forth toward mouth.
Marijuana with mandrax [smoked in a bottle] goofa (Is) Head is tilted back with
hand held up at mouth, as if holding the neck of a bottle.
Matches tos (Is) Thumb and forefinger show shape of box of matches and shake
slightly.
Money imali (Z) tjhelete (S) inyuku (Is) Tip of thumb rubs half an inch below tip of
forefinger with remaining fingers bent inward.
Never angeke (Z) Both hands with palms facing each other move up and down,
hitting each other.
No (Not like that) Ha se tsona (S) Shake head.
No (I refuse) Current (Is) Forearm is bent with elbow held up to the side at neck
level. Hand rests on chest.
No (Its not me) Ha se nna (S) Hands held up at neck height with palms outward are
crossed over each other once or twice.
Nose (Big nose) impumulo enkulu (Z) Hand, with curved splayed fingers, is held
over nose.
Nothing (I have nothing) Fokol (Is) Hands are held out to the sides, palms up and
shoulders raised.
Now or today manje (Z) First finger points to the ground and moves up and down.
Okay {positive} moja (Is) Thumb points upward, with rest of hand in fist shape.
Open the door Bula monyako (S) Hand is held out as if grasping the handle of a door,
and pulled toward gesturer.
Over there ka daar (Is) Hand makes arc in the appropriate direction.
Pay gaafa (Is) Flat hand is drawn at least twice at right angle along upturned palm of
other hand, away from the gesturer.
Penis (Small penis) pipi e nyane (S) Thumb and first finger of one hand hold the little
finger of the other hand near the tip. Alternatively, a curled little finger is moved
up and down.
Perfect nca (Is) Tips of first finger and thumb held together are placed on lips and
then moved outward as lips make kissing action.
Phone or telephone bela (Is) Fist with thumb extended upward and fourth finger
extended downward is held at side of head.
223
Photograph or camera shoota or khemera (S) Hands are shaped as if holding a

camera, with first finger curved and moved up and down.
Pregnant (Shes pregnant) O spati (Is) One hand, slightly curved, traces a curve in
front of the stomach from top to bottom.
Quiet (Be quiet) Thula (Z) First finger is placed against lips.
Rappers amarapper (Z) One or two hands, with fingers hanging loosely but
extended, are held out in front at about face height and moved back and forth.
Return (Im coming back) Ke ya spina (Is) Hand is held out in front of the body,
forefinger points down and hand rotates from wrist.
Run away slayza (Is) Fist, with fingers toward torso and thumb extended, is held
stationary in front of the body. Other hand is also held in a fist with thumb
extended but knuckles facing outward. Tip of the thumb touches stationary
thumb and moves diagonally outward away from the other hand.
Run matha (S) Arms make running action.
Scare tatazela (Is) Both hands with fingers splayed are held out in front of the
gesturer at the sides with palms facing each other. Slight movement is made back
and forth from the wrist.
Scared (Hes scared of girls) Uyasha (Is, literal meaning: He is burning) Thumb and
first two fingers hold shirt in front of the heart and move in and out.
Alternatively, hand opens and closes in front of the heart.
Scissors skere (S) First and second fingers make opening and closing action.
Scissors kick scissors kick (Is) Two hands with palms facing each other move up and
down in opposite directions, and then one hand goes back over the shoulder.
Secret lover makwapheni (Z) One hand is placed under opposite armpit.
Seven seven (S) (Z) First finger and thumb are extended.
Shut up Thula (Z) Zipa (Is) First finger and thumb with tips touching move across
mouth quickly.
Sissy (Hes a sissy) O stjuzana (Is) Forearms are bent with hands held up at chest
level on the sides. Hands hang and shoulders are drawn up.
Six six (S) (Z) Thumb is extended.
Sleep gidla (Is) Hand is held up with palm facing toward the side of the head. Head
is bent slightly toward the hand.
Smoke or cigarette inkawuza or iduzu (Is) Forefinger and second finger are held
together and tap mouth.
Soccer or dribble diski or penta (Is) One hand moves down at an angle in one
direction and then diagonally down in the opposite direction.
Sorry Hadi (Is) Both hands are held up with palms facing outward and extended
fingers slightly apart.
Spectacles mazaza (Is) First fingers and thumbs are held together at tips to form
circles in front of eyes.
Stab or knife gwaza or igoni (Z) Forearm is bent up from the elbow with hand at
shoulder height in the shape of a fist with thumb and little finger extended. Slight
hand movement back and forth.
Stink (She or he stinks) O ya nkga (S) Hand is waved up and down in front of nose
with palm facing down.
Strangle kgama (S) Elbow is raised to almost shoulder height. Arm is bent at elbow
and grasped at the wrist by the other hand in front of the chest.
Strength amandla (Z) Arms are bent up with fists facing upward to the front.
Study geleza (Is) Hands are held up in front of the speaker with palms facing toward
the face as if holding a book.
Stupid (She or he is stupid) Ke bare (Is) Flat hand, with palm toward gesturer,
moves diagonally downward across the face.
Surprise (Im surprised) Ke maketse (S) Hands are clapped together and dropped
from the wrist away from the gesturer.
Swear (I swear) Ngiyafunga (Z) First and second fingers are crossed and point
upward.
224
Sweep shanyela (Z) Hands, as if holding a broom, make sweeping action.

Talk ringa (Is) Fingers and thumb open and close in front of the mouth.
Thin (She or he is thin) O slenda (Is) Arms are held straight down in front of the
body with hands extended and palms facing each other and held close together.
Thought Umcabango (Z) First finger moves in and out against side of head.
Tie (Little tie) Ntanjana (Is) One hand makes grasping action as if holding a tie at the
front of the neck.
Time isikhathi (Z) First finger or first and second finger tap top of wrist.
Tomorrow kusasa (Z) Hand, at head height, in front of the gesturer makes a small arc
toward the front.
Toughie Mathafana or Tougho (Is) Hands, slightly curved and fingers splayed, are
held over the chest.
Trouble (Youre in trouble) Gthing (Is) Hands, fingers loosely splayed and palms
toward gesturer, are held at chest level and moved up and down.
True (Its true) Strue (Is) Arms are crossed over each other and first fingers linked at
about face level.
Two two First and second finger held up in V shape. Palm faces inward to gesturer.
Unity hlanganani (Z) Hands, with fingers splayed and palms toward gesturer, move
toward each other so that fingers cross over and go out again.
Urinate six nine (Is) First finger is waved sideways in front of crotch.
Volume (Turn down or up the volume) Hafola or phahamisa (S) Hand as if holding
dial is turned counterclockwise or clockwise.
Vomit gabha (Z) First and second fingers move in and out toward mouth.
Wait ema (S) Hand is held up at face height with palm away from gesturer and
fingers splayed.
Walk or go hamba (Z) tsamaya (S) First and second fingers imitate walking action.
Wash [oneself] splasha (Is) Hands imitate action of splashing water on face.
Wash [clothes] washa (Z) Fists, one facing up and the other facing down, are rubbed
together.
Wristwatch iwashi (Z) Second finger and thumb grasp wrist.
Write or pen skryfa or pene (Is) Hand, with first finger and thumb as if holding a pen,
imitates action of writing.
Yes ya (Z) Head nods.
You wena (Z)(S) First finger points outward.

Brookes - Quotable Gesture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brookes - Quotable Gesture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heather Brookes

HUMAN SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL, SOUTH AFRICA

A Repertoire of South African

n a comparative study of gestural communication in New York City during the

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

conversations among mixed-gender groupings; and communicative interactions at

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

(1993) methodology for identifying Catalan emblems. Categorization of gestures also

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

*Numbers that have unusual conventionalized forms have been included.

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Balls (Your balls are

Cold (Im cold)

Arse (Fat arse)

Desire (I desire her)

Know (I dont know)

Hungry (Im hungry)

of interpersonal control according to Kendons (1981) classification.

enact a communicative message as part of ritual interactional exchanges in order to

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

a statement, a question, or even a suggestion, depending on context, and refer only

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Child, Youth, and Family Development

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

A Repertoire of South African Quotable Gestures

Photograph or camera shoota or khemera (S) Hands are shaped as if holding a

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Sweep shanyela (Z) Hands, as if holding a broom, make sweeping action.

You might also like