| Abstract: | A field study was conducted in Israel to identify emblematic gestures recognized and used by Hebrew speakers. Studies which have identified the emblematic gestures of particular ethnic or national groups are reviewed and criticized. This study seeks to contribute increased rigor and systematology to the identification of particular groups' emblematic gestures.Twenty-six gestures commonly used in classroom interaction were selected for testing. The instrument used was Schneller's form, “Investigations of Interpersonal Communication in Israel.” Subjects included college students, members of YMCA classes for pensioners, and others. On the instrument, subjects noted their recognition and interpretations of the investigator's encoding intentions, their certainty or interpretation and where they learned each gesture.Whereas previous studies of this nature accepted around 70% interpretive agreement among subjects, this study indicates that at least 90% is a more reliable measure by which to label gestures “emblems.” In addition, correlations were tabulated for the effects of subjects' age, ethnicity, years in Israel, certainty about interpretation, and accuracy of interpretation.The findings of this study were: (a) eight gestures were identified as emblems, and three more gestures identified as possible emblems, (b) slightly negative although insignificant correlations were found between increased age, years in Israel, expressed certainty of interpretation and accuracy of interpretation, and (c) natives and subjects from 20–24 years of age tended to have the highest rates of expressed certainty of interpretation as well as accuracy of interpretation.The findings are compared with those of three other studies of Jews' gesturing and differences between the studies are considered. Recommendations include continuing such studies and comparing the results of related projects in order to form a comprehensive picture of particular groups of people.Limitations are discussed. These include: (a) a less than representative sample, (b) lack of a consistent conversational context, (c) potential for distortion in the decoding process, (d) the lack of a unified gesture labeling system, and (e) the possibility of cultural or researcher bias. |
