Talk:Psycholinguistics/Gesture

= Peer Review for Chapter (Nathanael Crawford) =

Introduction
The introduction to this chapter is good. It piques the reader’s interest with a quote and gets the reader thinking about how gesture is related to overall communication and cautions the reader about making assumptions about this relationship. That being said, you do make some pretty bold statements toward the end of the intro without having supported their veracity yet or at least citing the articles that do this. Language like “the plain answer is” and “clearly” may be more suited for the conclusion. Finally, I would really work to make your “thesis statement/question” more explicit and refined to suit the body of the text. As it stands, the phrase, “gesture is connected to language,” is a bit vague and general.

Types of Gestures
The examples given to illustrate each type of gesture are good. I would find it really helpful to have some diagrams or pictures to illustrate each one (or at least the more difficult ones to conceptualize like “cohesive gestures”). Also, the “Note” at the bottom should be formatted to be less significant than the gesture headings. Finally, gestures are distinguished from emblems, but what about facial expressions?

Information Communication
I think this section and the rest of the page would be more cohesive if the author used the terminology introduced above (types of gestures) more consistently throughout. (E.g., Pick “gesture,” “gesturing,” or “gesticulation” (don’t use interchangeably) when talking about gesture in general, and use a specific type of gesture when possible to illustrate a point). Also, I would like to see a specific example to illustrate how gesture can clarify “speech ambiguity.” Finally, remember to use transitions to link ideas you have just presented to new ideas about to be presented (e.g., “Research suggests…” is not transitioned into very well).

Lexical Access
I found this section very interesting and explained well. The first sentence was a bit cumbersome, however, I think “lexical affiliates” should be better defined. I also think that the link between Wesp et al., (2001) and Morsella & Kraus (2005) should be made more explicit (the sentence structure also made it hard to understand). Also, “The first hypothesis of why …” occurs often and is a poorly formed; it should be “the first hypothesis that explains why,” or something like that. Also, the phrase “gestures occur extremely near to their lexical affiliates” refers to the organization of the mental lexicon, which has not really been discussed so far. You could link out to such a discussion, or briefly talk about it. Finally, “newer views” are mentioned at the end of this section very briefly. It would be great to expand on these more, showing the current state of the literature and encouraging the reader to actively compare different views on gesture.

Neurophysiological Evidence
This is a really neat section. I think that you need to describe what “phonological access, storage, and encoding” difficulties means by either linking out to a page with such an explanation or by using a term that you have already presented. It might also be interesting to delve deeper into the implications of this for people with specific types of aphasia.

Development
The transition from Lexical Access to Neurophysiological Evidence, to Development is excellent. An interesting question I have concerning this, that you may want to address, is “What does the fact that gestures precede words tell us about communication in general? Is it largely unspoken? What is the point of words if we have gesture?”

Gesture – Inclusive Models
If you could use a base model for each of the three and show how they are different/diverge from it in a diagram for each, it would be very helpful to aid conceptualization. For example for model 1, what is a “growth point;” 2, what is a “conceptulizer;” 3, what does words and gestures “running parallel” look like. These terms/ideas could be better defined too.

Conclusion
You’ve switched to using “gesticulation” instead of “gesture.” The conclusion needs to refer back to the introduction better and your main “thesis statement.”  (Need to see a clear/precise thesis statement/question in intro and conclusion; it’s there, but not explicit). Finally, I think you should italicize new concepts or jargon, and don’t forget to link all of your in-text citations to your references section.

SUMMARY OF EDIT
Research: A = There are lots of powerful evidence and key sources with contrasting viewpoints and good discussion (drawing conclusions).

Logic: B = There is a clear flow of ideas in general, but weaker organization and use of transitions before “Neurophysiological Evidence” (first half).

Answers Question: B = There is definitely an underlying question being answered here, but I felt that it was not explicitly stated/asked. If it was, it was slightly incongruent with the body of the text. Make sure it is explicit in the introduction and conclusion. Lots of good evidence, but “question must be refined to fit this.

Writing Style:  A = You are very creative and acknowledge your sources. There are a number of minor grammatical errors (e.g., argument structure) and run-on sentences, but there were only a few times where this impeded my understanding of the text.

Structure: A = I think the structure is excellent. The main thing I would focus on in making sure that the “thesis” or “question” and intro and conclusion match up more with the body of the text (which is very congruent).

Textbook: A = While this chapter covers many similar themes to those of the course textbook, it brings them altogether in one place with a logical flow and in your own words. Also, new articles were researched and brought in novel ways.

Overall: A = This was a very enjoyable, informative and concise read that is will referenced.

--Nathanael Crawford 00:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)