REFRAMING RITUAL GESTURES IN DIALOGUE: GESTURE STUDIES AND SACRAMENTAL RITUALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ritual gestures have traditionally been understood as conventional bodily actions that are an external accompaniment to language. This thesis challenges this understanding by exploring the relevance of the modern field of gesture studies to Roman Catholic understandings of ritual gestures. Following the field of gesture studies, which argues that gestures are indeed part of language, this thesis argues that ritual gestures are a fundamental part of the content and structure of the “sacramental dialogue” that occurs between ritual participants in Roman Catholic sacramental rituals. Despite a number of overlapping interests, researchers in the field of gesture studies have given very little attention to ritual gestures and religious studies scholars have in turn given very little attention to the field of gesture studies. This thesis represents the first comprehensive attempt to build a bridge between these fields. Using conceptual blending theory, this thesis shows that gestures in ritual settings can actually function similarly to gestures in everyday settings because they both occur within the context of dialogue. The nature and function of three sacramental gestures in the Roman Catholic tradition are examined within the context of the metaphorical concept of “sacramental dialogue”: palm-up open hand (PUOH) gestures, the raising of the Eucharistic elements, and the breaking of the Eucharistic bread. It is shown that these and other ritual gestures are rich multi-modal communicative actions that contribute to the structure and content of the sacramental rituals in ways that words cannot. Ritual gestures are therefore a fundamental part of the structure and content of the sacramental dialogue and cannot be adequately understood apart from words as non-verbal accompaniments or in terms of words as symbols.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".