Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T12:11:45.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Construction Grammar and Gesture

from Part IV - Multimodality and Construction Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
Elisabeth Zima
Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents the current state of research in multimodal Construction Grammar with a focus on co-speech gestures. We trace the origins of the idea that constructions may have to be (re-)conceptualized as multimodal form–meaning pairs, deriving from the inherently multimodal nature of language use and the usage-based model, which attributes to language use a primordial role in language acquisition. The issue of whether constructions are actually multimodal is contested. We present two current positions in the field. The first one argues that a construction should only count as multimodal if gestures are mandatory parts of that construction. Other, more meaning-centered, approaches rely less on obligatoriness and frequency of gestural (co-)occurrences and either depart from a recurrent gesture to explore the verbal constructions it combines with or focus on a given meaning, for example, negation, and explore its multimodal conceptualization in discourse. The chapter concludes with a plea for more case studies and for the need to develop large-scale annotated corpora and apply statistical methods beyond measuring mere frequency of co-occurrence.

Keywords

constructiongesturemultimodal constructionsrecurrencefrequency(non-)obligatorinessopen slots
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 384 - 404
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alibali, M. W. & Kita, S. (2010). Gesture highlights perceptually present information for speakers. Gesture, 10(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrén, M. (2010). Children’s Gestures from 18 to 30 Months. PhD thesis. Lund University: Centre for Languages and Literature.Google Scholar
Balantani, A. (2021). Reference construction in interaction: The case of type-indicative “so”. Journal of Pragmatics, 181, 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (2000). A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S., eds., Usage-based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 7–28.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressem, J. (2013). A linguistic perspective on the notation of form features in gestures. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S., eds., Body-Language-Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1079–1098.Google Scholar
Bressem, J., & Müller, C. (2014). The family of AWAY-gesture. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S., eds., Body-Language-Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1592–1604.Google Scholar
Bressem, J. & Müller, C. (2017). The “Negative-Assessment-Construction” – A multimodal pattern based on a recurrent gesture? Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar. The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calbris, G. (2011). Elements of Meaning in Gesture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chui, K. (2005). Temporal patterning of speech and iconic gestures in conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(6), 871–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2008). Why study metaphor and gesture? In Müller, C. & Cienki, A., eds., Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2015). Spoken language usage events. Language & Cognition, 7, 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics, gesture studies, and multimodal communication. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(49), 603–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2017). Utterance Construction Grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of constructions. Linguistics Vanguard, 3, https://doi/10.1515/lingvan–2016–0048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. & Müller, C. (2008). Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In Gibbs, R., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debras, C. (2021). Multimodal profiles of je (ne) sais pas in spoken French. Journal of Pragmatics, 182(1), 42–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. & Caldwell-Harris, C. (2015). Frequency and entrenchment. In Dąbrowska, E & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, D. (1941). Gesture and Environment. Princeton: King’s Crown Press.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. & Friesen., W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origin, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2009). The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferré, G. (2010). Timing relationships between speech and co-verbal gestures in spontaneous French. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Valetta, Malta, pp. 86–91. https://hal.science/hal-00485797.Google Scholar
Feyaerts, K., Brône, G., & Oben, B. (2017). Multimodality in interaction. In Dancygier, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. (2008). Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In Gibbs, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 462–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1985). Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1998). Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In Tomasello, M., ed., The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Mahwah & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 203–219.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S., D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, S. (2009). The Impulse to Gesture: Where Language, Minds, and Bodies Intersect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S. & Ungerer, T. (2023). Constructionist Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hinell, J. (2018). The multimodal marking of aspect: The case of five periphrastic auxiliary constructions in North American English. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(4), 773–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2013). Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 307–328.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2017). Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0042/html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. (1998). Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, M., ed., The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 155–175.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A., ed. (2013). Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jannedy, S. & Mendoza-Denton, N. (2005). Structuring information through gesture and intonation. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS), 3, 199–244.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1980). Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process utterance. In Key, M., ed., The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (2014). Semiotic diversity in utterance production and the concept of ‘language’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369(1651), 20130293. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendon, A. (2015). Gesture and sign: Utterance uses of visible bodily action. In Allen, K., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 33–46.Google Scholar
Kita, S., Alibali, M., & Chu, M. (2017). How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis. Psychological Review, 124(3), 245–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraus, R. M. (1998). Why do we gesture when we speak? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(2), 54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladewig, S. (2011). Putting the cyclic gesture on a cognitive basis. CogniTextes, 6. https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladewig, S. (2014). Recurrent gestures. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J., eds., Body-Language-Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1558–1575.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanwer, J. P. (2017). Apposition: A multimodal construction? The multimodality of linguistic constructions in the light of usage-based theory. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasch, A. (2020). Semantically motivated constructions in a semantically motivated constructicon. Presentation at “Constructing a Constructicon,” Trient, May 2020.Google Scholar
Loehr, D. (2004). Gesture and Intonation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University dissertation.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2006). Metaphor and Metonymy in Language and Gesture: Discourse Evidence for Multimodal Models of Grammar. Ann Arbor: Pro Quest/UMI.Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2017). Multimodal existential constructions in German: Manual actions of giving as experiential substrate for grammatical and gestural patterns. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2019). Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates form, function and schematic patterns in gesture. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. (2004). Forms and uses of the Palm Up Open Hand: A case of a gesture family? In Müller, C. & Posner, R., eds., The Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gesture: The Berlin Conference. Berlin: Weidler Verlag, pp. 233–256.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ningelgen, J. & Auer, P. (2017). Is there a multimodal construction based on non-deictic so in German? Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagán Cánovas, C. & Valenzuela, J. (2017). Timelines and multimodal constructions: Facing new challenges. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0087.Google Scholar
Pagán Cánovas, C., Valenzuela, J., Alcaraz-Carríon, D., Olza, I., & Ramscar, M. (2020). Quantifying the speech-gesture relation with massive multimodal datasets: Informativity in time expressions. PloS ONE, 15(6), e0233892. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanaz, M. J. (2013). Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11(2), 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2007). Entrenchment, salience and basic levels. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–138.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2014). Entrenchment, Memory and Automaticity: The Psychology of Linguistic Knowledge and Language Learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schmitt, R. (2014): Zur multimodalen Struktur von turn-taking. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 6, 17–61.Google Scholar
Schoonjans, S. (2017). Multimodal Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonjans, S. (2018). Modalpartikeln als Multimodale Konstruktionen: Eine Korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shattnuck-Hufnagel, S., Yasinnik, Y., Veilleux, N., & Renwick, M. (2007). A method for studying the time alignment of gestures and prosody in American English: ‘Hits’ and pitch accents in academic-lecture-style speech. In Espositio, A., Bratanić, M., Keller, E., & Marinaro, M., eds., Fundamentals of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication and the Biometric Issue. Washington, DC: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Steen, F. F., Hougaard, A., Joo, J., Olza, I., Pagán Cánovas, C., Pleshakova, A., Ray, S., Uhrig, P., Valenzuela, J., Woźny, J., & Turner, M. (2018). Toward an infrastructure for data-driven multimodal communication research. Linguistics Vanguard, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. (2010). Überlegungen zu einem multimodalen Verständnis der gesprochenen Sprache am Beispiel deiktischer Verwendungsweisen des Ausdrucks “so”. Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 47, 1–23.Google Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. (2015). Deixis in der Face-to-Face-Interaktion. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. (2020). Mit Blick auf die Geste – multimodale Verfestigungen in der Interaktion. In Weidner, B., König, K., Wegner, L., & Imo, W., eds., Verfestigungen in der Interaktion – Konstruktionen, sequenzielle Muster, kommunikative Gattungen. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 233–263.Google Scholar
Teßendorf, S. (2014). Pragmatic and metaphoric gestures – Combining functional with cognitive approaches in the analysis of the “brushing aside gesture”. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J., eds., Body-Language-Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1540–1558.Google Scholar
ter Bekke, M., Drijvers, L., & Holler, J. (2020). The predictive potential of hand gestures during conversation: An investigation of the timing of gestures in relation to speech. In Proceedings of the 7th GESPIN – Gesture and Speech in Interaction Conference. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0007-B9A2–1.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2021). Construction grammar, multimodal communication, and design features of language: Preliminaries to a coherent research program. Presentation at SLE conference, Athens, August 30–September 3, 2021.Google Scholar
Ziem, A. (2017). Do we really need a Multimodal Construction Grammar? Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zima, E. (2014a). English multimodal motion constructions. A construction grammar perspective. Studies van de BKL – Travaux du CBL – Papers of the LSB, 8. http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/linguist/SBKL/sbkl2013/Zim2013.pdf.Google Scholar
Zima, E. (2014b). Gibt es multimodale Konstruktionen? Eine Studie zu [V(motion) in circles] und [all the way from X PREP Y]. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 15, 1–48.Google Scholar
Zima, E. (2017a). On the multimodality of [all the way from X PREP Y]. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zima, E. (2017b). Multimodal constructional resemblance: The case of English circular motion constructions. In de Mendoza, F. Ruiz, Luzondo, A., & Pérez-Sobrino, P., eds., Constructing Families of Constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 301–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zima, E. (2018). Multimodale Mittel der Rederechtsaushandlung im gemeinsamen Erzählen in der Face-to-Face Interaktion. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 18, 241–273.Google Scholar
Zima, E. & Bergs, A. (2017). Multimodality and Construction Grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-1006/html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zima, E. & Brône, G. (2015). Cognitive Linguistics and interactional discourse: Time to enter into dialogue. Language & Cognition, 7(4), 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×