The target article is consistent with seeing languages as semiotically heterogenous, using categorial, depictive, and analogic semiotic signs. “Gesture,” used in the target article, is shown to be vague and not useful. Kendon's view, criticised in the target, is restated. His proposal for comparative semiotic analyses of how visible bodily action is used in utterance production is reexplained.

中文翻译：

---

作为符号学异构系统的语言

目标文章与使用分类、描述和类比符号符号将语言视为符号异质的一致。目标文章中使用的“手势”被证明含糊不清且无用。Kendon 的观点，在目标中受到批评，被重申。他提出的关于如何在话语产生中使用可见的身体动作的比较符号学分析的建议被重新解释了。