DOI: 10.24308/iass-2014-016

St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia, Bulgaria

madzharov.dzheni@gmail.com

Abstract

This report proposes a new approach to solving some of these problems. As the basis is used the principle that each human movement, laden with meaning, is a sign in semiotic sense of this name, and is called gesture The same holds key features that distinguish it from other similar gesture. The establishment of these features and their analysis allows, at any particular use of a gesture, precise to determine its actual role and importance in the text of the relevant ritualized action (ritual, custom, celebration). These basic characteristics, that are inherent to any gesture, form the so-called system of dimensions of ritual gesture. The system includes the following five dimensions: physical form of gesture, environment, relationship between addresser and addressee, function and semantics. The paper examines the content and the scope of each of these dimensions. The provided scientific method allows after specifying the first three dimensions of the studied gesture to establish its current function and semantics for each particular use. The results make it possible to determine the exact purpose and meaning of each researched ritualized action, which involves the studied gesture. The method allows the identification of already missing functions and semantics that this gesture has manifested in various historical stages of its existence. Through this approach the ethnology science may reveal the mechanism of transmission of tradition and the creation of ethnic character of each culture.

Human communities use gestures to communicate in everyday life and in performing ritual actions. Most of the human movements in everyday life have meanings, which are limited only to the content of their physical execution. However, in ritualized human behavior the gestures are always loaded with a connotative meaning. Ritualized gestures are poorly studied by Ethnology. Inaccuracies are allowed in scientific research very often when we find out the origin and nature of certain phenomena in culture. This is the result of neglect or wrong explanation of gestures, which are important elements of the ritualized action. Therefore, this paper offers a new approach for the study of ritualized movements and actions in the culture. This is an opportunity to clarify the exact purpose and meaning, function and semantics of the gesture in a ritual, custom and celebration.

Because of the fact that Anthropology, Ethnology and Folklore do not offer such a suitable method for the study of a ritual gesture I use a semiotic approach. This approach to the study of signs suggests a separation of gesture’s form from the information, which is conveyed. This is an extremely important point, because very often the same physical form of gesture is the carrier of two or more different information contents. There are also reverse cases, when several gestures with a different physical form, convey the same information content. That’s why the clarification of the information conveyed can be done only in the context of communication, because of this I accept the idea that each loaded with meaning movement, which participates in this process, represents a semiotic sign.

It is well known that the relationship between the form of the sign and its content is conditional and arbitrary (Crapo 2000: 186). Likewise, the relationship between the form of the gesture and its meaning is arbitrary and it is the result of a public agreement. The gesture is always used in a sign system, where it has a specific meaning, which is agreed in the community. In this case, the physical form of a gesture beside a carrier of meaning does definite activity in this sign system. In other words, in the composition of a ritualized action the gesture always has a purpose and meaning. But like a sign it has also a function and semantics.

In every ritual action, which is a part of a sign system, gesture besides a denotative meaning often has also a connotative one. There the gesture most often acts as a symbol that replaces non-attending in the ritual action object (person, event, idea, etc.). So with the participation in a ritualized action a gesture creates the text of the action. Outside the framework of a ritual action, time and space the gesture often loses its accepted connotative and sometimes denotative meaning. Furthermore executed outside the scope of a ritualized action the gesture is deprived of the agreed in the community standard ritual function and semantics (Tolstoy 1999: 469). There, outside the sign system of a ritualized action, the gesture is mostly just an ordinary human movement without informative or communicative value. Therefore the researched gesture should be studied and analyzed mainly in the context of the sign system (culture) where it actively exists.

Due to the close links between gesture and ideology (religion) it is imperative that the ethnological study should always be careful about the impact of this system, because it influences the use of gesture and creates its contemporary meaning. That means any gesture form can change its content. On the other hand, gestures in culture are dynamic and changing phenomena. Sometimes gestures change their role not only in ritualized action but also in the composition of the whole culture. However, any member of the community knows their actual purpose and meaning in life. How is that?

The main task of the science is to discover what are those characteristics that allow the person to recognize the exact purpose and meaning of the gesture in a given situation. This supposes to find out some characteristics of the gesture that determine its specific purpose and meaning in the context of a studied ritualized action. Like the words in a language the gestures don’t exist alone, only for themselves. It must be stated that the sum total of all gestures in a culture, like the words, make up their language. This language has generally accepted rules that determine how to use gestures (Popova 2004: 70). My task was to find out what those rules or characteristics of the gesture are, that allow the person to determine exactly which of the many meanings of a particular physical form of a gesture to apprehend at the moment. After many studies I have found out that the rules are more like characteristics that determine how to perceive the purpose and meaning of the gesture. These characteristics of the gesture I accept to call dimensions. The use of this concept makes it possible to capture and present the whole complex sum of information such as: what the signified human gesture looks like; describes its physical form; the conditionalities that accompany the use of gesture; the interaction between sender and perceiver of gesture; the purpose and meaning of a gesture in a ritualized situation, its function and semantics etc.

According to Ferdinand de Saussure the meaning of a sign is determined by its interaction with other signs from the system (Popova 2004: 70). Because of the special mode of use in a ritualized action gesture has a function and semantics that are understood only in the context of the sign system. Upon removal the ritual gesture out of this sign system its function and semantics change and even disappear. This means that these two dimensions of gesture have conditional nature and are a result of a public agreement. They depend on the sign system and also on the particular language of gestures. By the ethnological research each ritualized environment determines the specific purpose and function, meaning and semantics of a researched gesture. This requires a detailed examination and analysis of any phenomenon in the culture, which composition containes the studied gesture.

It is well known, that human movement, loaded with meaning, becomes a gesture only as a result of semiosis that allows the adoption of agreed meaning. In ethnological sense semiosis is this moment, in the scope of a ritualized action, in which a human movement is played in standard and stereotype way, according to the knowledge and expectations of the community. In this way the human movement becomes a gesture or more precisely a symbol that has a ritual purpose and carries a specific meaning.

To understand the researched gesture is necessary to consider the characteristics of the specific environment in which semiosis is achieved. This allows us to identify those elements of the environment that create the purpose (function) and meaning (semantics) of gesture. These invisible, but bound in a system elements, I call system of dimensions of ritual gesture. By ritual gesture I mean anyone involved in a ritualized action. The use of this system for the study of gesture allows all information to be accurately described and traced in development. Thus can be analyzed the mechanism for setting (changing) of each purpose (function) and meaning (semantics) of the gesture.

1. What are the elements in the system of dimensions of a ritual gesture?

With the use of a gesture in ritualized action it can be clearly distinguished the gender, age, social and ritual status, kinship, local, religious and the ethnic identity of the participants. The gesture shows the ritual status of those who perform it, but also to whom it is directed. By gesture analysis it is obligatory to consider its external visible shape, which I call physical form of the gesture.

In a ritualized action the physical form of gesture is used in conjunction with objects, clothing, time, space and other elements of the environment which are loaded with meaning. They all have an impact in the creation of purpose and meaning (function and semantics) of the gesture. This dimension of a ritual gesture I call environment.

Each gesture is performed by someone or something. In ritualized action the gesture is necessarily directed at another individual or entity that is a participant in the communicative process. In this way the reproduced gesture creates a connection between the sender and the perceiver, which I call relationship between addresser and addressee.

The reproduction of a ritual gesture is never an action without a purpose. That human behavior may be a practical one, but there is always a symbolic purpose in it. In the science, this characteristic of the gesture is called function. The ability of gesture to influence is one of its main quality.

In the scope of a sign system every gesture means something. Semantics is its second main quality.

The above mentioned five characteristics form the system of dimensions of ritual gesture that accompanies and defines the way for its use in any sign system (like a culture). The use of this method for the analysis of cultural phenomena makes it possible to reveal the exact and current function and semantics of the researched ritual gesture. This allows to determine the true purpose and meaning of a studied ritualized actions, in which the gesture is involved.

2. Detailed content of each dimension.

2.1. Physical form.

This dimension includes the visible part of each loaded with meaning movement of the human body and its limbs, torso posture, facial expressions, movements of eyes and eyelids. In analysis of the form we should pay attention to the level, on which the gesture is performed - in vertical and horizontal, interlokutativly and also to the direction of movement - to the side, away or towards the body of the sender. Realization, as a part of this dimension, means what is the quality of performance of the gesture. Whether, according to the standard of community the gesture is performed in its whole content or in a part, with the use of emotion, effort or only schematically. Standard is a system of common rules and restrictions for the performance of any ritual gesture, which is agreed by community and each participant in the ritualized action is required to comply with them.

2.2. Environment.

This dimension includes all loaded with meaning elements of the ritualized environment, which are involved in gesture performance such as: place and space; time; objects that are loaded with meaning; clothing of addressers and addressees; gestures accompanying verbal forms (words, phrases, songs, etc.) local, religious, social, political and other circumstances; features of ritualized environment and situation; and all other objects, phenomena and factors that accompany performance of gesture or have something in common with establishing and clarifying its function and semantics.

2.3. Relationship between addresser and addressee.

The relationship between the performer (sender) of a gesture and the subject (object) to whom (which) it is directed is not always entirely clear. This connection beside its visible plan very often has an invisible one, too. In ritualized communication the sender always knows, that it is seen not only by those who are attending the event, but also by the forces of the Transcendental world. In this way the supernatural forces are directly involved in ritualized communication. Therefore often the performed gesture is not a personal expression of the individual, but a result of the will of those forces. So the ritual character – the addresser that stands on the visible plan is only the earthly representative (agent) of the Transcendental forces. This is the reason why we are forced always to seek for the addresser/s in the invisible (mythological) plan. Likewise, we should look for addressees of the ritual gesture that are on an invisible plan. Disclosure of addressers and addressees of the invisible plan is one of the major difficulty for the proper determination the purpose (function) and meaning (semantics) of researched gesture. Difficulty raises the fact that sometimes in ritualized communication the role of a character, with whom the gesture is connected, plays not a man, but an animate or inanimate object. Thus in the communicative process this object often acquires human characteristics (Bayburin & Toporkov 1990: 7). When we examine  the relationship between sender and perceiver we always take into account the composition and status of the participants, and analyze their following features: ritual character; sex; age; number; relationships between the participants when performing gesture - in synchronic and diachronic perspective; degree of acquaintance; social status; local, religious, ethnical and national origin; the symbolic value of the subjects and objects that play the role of the addresser and addressee. The disclosure of these details is crucial in the analysis of gesture, because even a small change in one of these elements leads to a change of purpose and function and, meaning semantics.

2.4. Function.

This dimension of the gesture is not always clearly distinguishable and understandable. Very often not only bearers of culture, but also researchers can not distinguish the function from the semantics of gesture. The reason for this is that the gesture is not seen as a semiotic sign that has three sides - form, function and semantics. Therefore it is required a thorough examination what use has the studied physical form of the gesture in different local manifestations of sign system (culture). Function is a characteristic ability of the ritual gesture: to mean or to represent another object; to carry information and to store knowledge; to load objects with meaning; to serve as a means of communication and circulation; to influece physically, mentally, metaphysically; to transmit feelings and moods, etc., all this in the process of a ritualized action. Put in a simple the function of gesture is the performance (activity), it does in the process of transferring information from sender to perceiver. Function is also the result that is derived from the influence of the gesture on the participants (subjects, objects) in a ritualized action. Because I’m looking at the gesture as a semiotic sign I accept that it performs the same functions as any other sign. But because of the special physical nature of the gesture a part of the famous semiotic features, characteristic of a verbal sign, are not inherent in the gesture. So I think the functions of the gesture are limited to the following sixteen: nominative, cognitive (significative), symbolic (representative, referral), communicative (denotative), pragmatic, appeal (conativ, regulatory), contact (faithic), deictic, symbolic, emotive, expressive, aesthetic, poetic, magic, ethnic, metalinguistic.

2.5. Semantics.

This complex dimension of a ritual gesture is settled last, after analyzing all factors that accompany the performance of the studied gesture. Only when any human movement, reproduced in ritualized action, fits into public contracted standard and begins its repeated and stereotyped application, then we can talk about the emergence of its sense, meaning. To clarify the actual meaning of the gesture it is necessary to trace the entire sum of the specific circumstances in which it is applied. This collection of all established meanings of gesture in the context of culture describes the range of its current semantics (Bayburin & Toporkov 1990: 21). In semiotics the term semantics (synonymous with meaning of the sign) is one of the most meaningful and harder to define, because different schools have different opinion on its scope and content. According to the linguistic semiotics semantics is the sense of the gesture as a sign, which is located in the mind of its interpreter, what he/she perceives (interprets) as an image, concept, idea, etc. Under the semantics of gesture we understand the overall plan of content of the sign with its denotative, significative and connotative meanings, including its semantics’ value.

The existence of gesture in culture and mainly in a ritual, custom and celebration implies a more complex state of its semantics. Therefore, Alexander K. Bayburin and Alexander L. Toporkov introduce two concepts of specifying the semantics of the gesture as motivation and explanation, which possess different aspects in culture. By motivation they understand the explanation of gesture’s meaning that gives the carrier of the culture. By explanation they understand that meaning of the gesture, which has a broader (territorial and chronological) character and is find out as a result of systematic research (Bayburin & Toporkov 1990: 18–19). Motivation level of semantics incorporates all those current, simple and common sense ideas and concepts with which bearer of the culture explains the meaning of the gesture. It can highlight aspects of the group, local, social, ethnic and religious interpretation of the meaning of the gesture. While established after a scientific study motivation reveals the logic for appearance, reasons for public negotiation and enforcement of this meaning, and its historical continuity of existence.

Due to continuous changes in the conditions under which is created the actual semantics of gesture we can not expect to be maintained all its motivations and explanations existed in culture. However, in different historical layers of the culture are stored separate data for the passed by meaning of the gesture in the form of words, phrases, prohibitions etc. The total sum of this protected information I call memory of the gesture (Bayburin & Toporkov 1990: 19). To semantics (motivation level) of gesture is applied its etnic (local and national) name. And also, all verbal forms, which are coming from, can be connected with or related to the studied gesture as words, phrases, idioms, the memories of one of its sense, meaning. Most often verbalized forms of gesture semantics and function appear as a result of its removal out of rituals, customs, his profane use or disappearance of community life (Tolstoy 1999: 482, note 11).

In ethnological study of culture there are two possible approaches for implementing the method system of dimensions of a ritual gesture – synchronic and diachronic. In the synchronic approach the research phenomenon (ritual, custom, celebration, ritualized action) we divid into main parts to determine which gesture (action) constructs the structure of the phenomenon. We are looking for other identical or similar physical and meaning forms of this gesture in the culture, and then analyze their systems of dimensions. This allows us to determine precisely the actual function and semantics of the researched gesture. In diachronic approach we study the historical development and changes of purpose and meaning, function and semantics of the researched gesture. We analyze various ritualized actions from the past and present of the culture, in which the researched gesture participates, in order to determine the sum of all its changes.

On my experience so far, the presented method for the study of ritual gesture, can be successfully applied in the analysis of any ritual gesture and household behavior that exists within a sign system. When the method is used in a comparative study of similar phenomena in two or more cultures, it allows  us to trace and reveal the mechanism by which are created and developed the ethnic features of these phenomena, as well as how is build the ethnic character of each culture.

References

BAYBURIN, Alexander K. & Alexander L. TOPORKOV. 1990. У истоков этикета. Этнографические очерки. [By sources of etiquette: Ethnographic articles]. Leningrad: Nauka.

CRAPO, Richley. 2000. Културна антропология. Как да разбираме себе си и другите. [Cultural Anthropology: Understanding Ourselves and Others]. Sofia: LIK.

POPOVA, Maria. 2004. Семиотика и комуникация. Очерци и разговори за знака и неговата употреба. [Semiotics and communication: Articles and talks about the sign and its usage]. Sofia: New Bulgarian University.

TOLSTOY, Nikita I. 1999. Из „граматиката” на славянските обреди. [About the ‘grammar’ of Slavic rituals]. In АВС на етнологията. Антология на науката за човека, културата и обществото. [ABC of Ethnology: Anthology of science of man, culture and society]. Vol. 2, (Ed.) I. Georgieva. Sofia: Sofia University Press, 465–483.