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-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T11:47:17.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part IV - Multimodality and Construction Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 335 - 436
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

References

Benus, S. (2021). Investigating Spoken English: A Practical Guide to Phonetics and Phonology Using Praat. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2022). From construction grammar(s) to pedagogical construction grammar. In Boas, H. C., ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brône, G. & Zima, E. (2014). Towards a dialogic Construction Grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cangemi, F. & Niebuhr, O. (2018). Rethinking reduction and canonical forms. In Cangemi, F., Clayards, M., Niebuhr, O., Schuppler, B., & Zellers, M., eds., Rethinking Reduction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language and Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Day-O’Connell, J. (2013). Speech, song, and the minor third: An acoustic study of the stylized interjection. Music Perception, 30, 441–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2022). Constructing learner speech: On the use of spoken data in applied Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas, ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions, 49, 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gras, P. & Elvira-Garcia, W. (2021). The role of intonation in Construction Grammar: On prosodic constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 180, 232–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imo, W. & Lanwer, J. P. (2020). Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. In Imo, W. & Lanwer, J. P., eds., Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurumada, C., Brown, M., & Tannenhaus, M. K. (2012). Pragmatic interpretation of contrastive prosody: It looks like speech adaptation. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 647–652. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6jw49594.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational Phonology, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landgraf, R. (2014). Are you serious? Irony and the perception of emphatic intensification. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages (TAL), pp. 91–94. www.isca-archive.org/tal_2014/landgraf14_tal.html.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (In press). A quantitative corpus approach to the (English) ironic tone of voice. In Schlechtweg, M., ed., Interfaces of Phonetics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marge, M., Espy-Wilson, C., Ward, N. G., Alwan, A., Artzi, Y., Bansal, M., Blankenship, G., Chai, J., III, Daumé, Dey, H., Harper, D., Howard, M., Kennington, T., Kruijff-Korbayová, C., Manocha, I., Matuszek, D., Mead, C., Mooney, R., Moore, R., Ostendorf, R. K., Pon-Barry, M., Rudnicky, H., Scheutz, A. I., Amant, M., Sun, R. S., Tellex, T., Traum, S., D., & Yu, Z. (2022). Spoken language interaction with robots: Research issues and recommendations. Computer Speech and Language, 71, 101255. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.05533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niebuhr, O. (2015). Stepped intonation contours: A new field of complexity. In Skarnitzl, R. & Niebuhr, O., eds., Tackling the Complexity of Speech. Prague: Charles University Press, pp. 39–74.Google Scholar
Niebuhr, O. (2019). Pitch accents as multiparametric configurations of prosodic features: Evidence from pitch-accent specific micro-rhythms in German. In Nyvad, A. M., ed., A Sound Approach to Language Matters: In Honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn. Aarhus: Aarhus University, pp. 321–351.Google Scholar
Niebuhr, O. & Ward, N. G. (2018). Challenges in the modeling of pragmatics-related prosody: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of the International Phonetics Association, 48, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. (2010). Prosodic constructions in making complaints. In Barth-Weingarten, D., Reber, E., & Selting, M., eds., Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poldvere, N. & Paradis, C. (2020). ‘What and then a little robot brings it to you?’ The reactive what-x construction in spoken dialogue. English Language and Linguistics, 24(2), 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchart, A. & Arvaniti, A. (2014). The form and use of uptalk in Southern Californian English. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Speech Prosody, pp. 20–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shriberg, E. E. & Stolcke, A. (2004). Direct modeling of prosody: An overview of applications in automatic speech processing. In Speech Prosody, pp. 575–582. www.isca-archive.org/speechprosody_2004/shriberg04_speechprosody.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B. (2010). Analysing Conversation: An Introduction to Prosody. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Torreira, F. & Grice, M. (2018). Melodic constructions in Spanish: Metrical structure determines the association properties of intonational tones. Journal of the International Phonetics Association, 48, 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigario, M., Cruz, M., & Frota, S. (2019). Why tune or text? The role of language phonological profile in the choice of strategies for tune-text adjustment. In Proceedings of the International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences, pp. 567–571. https://assta.org/proceedings/ICPhS2019Microsite/pdf/full-paper_443.pdf.Google Scholar
Ward, N. G. (2018). A corpus-based exploration of the functions of disaligned pitch peaks in American English dialog. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody, pp. 349–353. https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, N. G. (2019). Prosodic Patterns in English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, N. G. (2020). Ten prosodic patterns of turn-taking in Japanese conversation. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Speech Prosody, pp. 764–768. www.isca-archive.org/speechprosody_2020/ward20b_speechprosody.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, N. G. & Jodoin, J. A. (2019). A prosodic configuration that conveys positive assessment in American English. In International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences, pp. 3368–3372. https://assta.org/proceedings/ICPhS2019/papers/ICPhS_3417.pdf.Google Scholar
Ward, N. G., Kirkland, A., Włodarczak, M., & Szekely, E. (2022). Two pragmatic functions of breathy voice in American English conversation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Speech Prosody, pp. 82–86. https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2022-17.CrossRefGoogle 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

References

Almela, R. (1985). El si introductor de oraciones independientes. Lingüística Española Actual, 7(1), 5–13.Google Scholar
Alves, C. P. & Hirata-Vale, F. B. M. (2021). Construções condicionais insubordinadas adversativas no português brasileiro. Estudos Linguísticos, 50(2), 504–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, M. E., Díaz-Campos, M., McGory, J. T., & Morgan, T. A. (2002). Intonation across Spanish, in the Tones and Break Indices framework. Probus, 14(1), 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2014). The extremes of insubordination: Exclamatory as if! Journal of English Linguistics, 42(2), 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briz, A. & Grupo Val.Es.Co. (2002). Corpus de conversaciones coloquiales. Madrid: Arco-Libros.Google Scholar
Cable, S. (2011). Insubordination in Tlingit: An areal effect. Northwest Journal of Linguistics, 5(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Capelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions SV1-7/2006. www.constructions-online.de.Google Scholar
Colina, S. (2009). Spanish truncation processes: The emergence of the unmarked. Linguistics, 34(6), 1199–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contreras, L. (1960). Oraciones independientes introducidas por si. Boletín de Filología, 12, 273–290.Google Scholar
D’Hertefelt, S. (2018). Insubordination in Germanic: A Typology of Complement and Conditional Constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Hertefelt, S. & Verstraete, J.-C. (2014). Independent complement constructions in Swedish and Danish: Insubordination or dependency shift? Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M. (2006). La distinction entre dépendance grammaticale et dépendance macrosyntaxique comme moyen de résoudre les paradoxes de la subordination. Faits de Langue, 28, 119–132.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. (2017). On the margins of language: Ideophones, interjections and dependencies in linguistic theory. In Enfield, N. J., ed., Dependencies in Language. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 195–203.Google Scholar
Elvira-García, W. (2016). La prosodia de las construcciones insubordinadas conectivas. PhD thesis. University of Barcelona. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/400949.Google Scholar
Estebas-Vilaplana, E. & Prieto, P. (2008). La notación prosódica del español: una revisión del Sp-ToBI. Estudios de fonética experimental, 17, 264–283. www.raco.cat/index.php/EFE/article/view/140072/0.Google Scholar
Estebas-Vilaplana, E. & Prieto, P. (2010). Castilian Spanish intonation. In Prieto, P. & Roseano, P., eds., Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 17–48.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (1993). Code, inference, placedness and ellipsis. In Foley, W. A., ed., The Role of Theory in Linguistic Description. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 243–280.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In Nikolaeva, I., ed., Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 366–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. & Watanabe, H. (2016). The dynamics of insubordination. In Evans, N. & Watanabe, H., eds., Insubordination. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2020 [1988]): Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Gras, P., Östman, J.-O., & Verschueren, J., eds., Form and Meaning in Language, Vol. III: On Linguistic Theory and Constructions. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 131–153.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2020 [1999]): Inversion and constructional inheritance. In Gras, P., Östman, J.-O., & Verschueren, J., eds., Form and Meaning in Language, Vol. III: On Linguistic Theory and Constructions. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 155–172.Google Scholar
Fried, M. & Machač, P. (2022). Intonation as a cue to epistemic stance in one type of insubordinate clauses. Folia Linguistica, 56(1), 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gras, P. (2011). Gramática de Construcciones en Interacción. Propuesta de un modelo y aplicación al análisis de estructuras independientes con marcas de subordinación en español, PhD thesis. University of Barcelona. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/1716.Google Scholar
Gras, P. (2013). Entre la gramática y el discurso: valores conectivos de que inicial átono en español. In Jacob, D. & Ploog, K., eds., Autour de que. El entorno de que. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 89–112.Google Scholar
Gras, P. (2016). Revisiting the functional typology of insubordination: Insubordinate que-constructions in Spanish. In Evans, N. & Watanabe, H., eds., Insubordination. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 113–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gras, P. (2020). De partículas discursivas a construcciones semiesquemáticas: construcciones introducidas por a ver si en español peninsular. Lingüística Española Actual, 42(1), 87–107.Google Scholar
Gras, P., & Cabedo, A. (2022). Polifuncionalidad y prosodia: Construcciones introducidas por a ver si en español peninsular. Spanish in Context, 19(1), 48–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gras, P. & Elvira-García, W. (2021). The role of intonation in Construction Grammar: On prosodic constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 180, 232–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gras, P., Pérez, S., & Brisard, F. (2023). Quotative que constructions in Spanish. A constructional variational approach. In Hennecke, I. & Wiesinger, E., eds., Constructions in Spanish. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gras, P. & Sansiñena, M. S. (2015). An interactional account of discourse-connective que-constructions in Spanish. Text and Talk, 35(4), 505–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gras, P. & Sansiñena, M. S. (2017). Exclamatives in the functional typology of insubordination: Evidence from complement insubordinate constructions in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 115, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gras, P. & Sansiñena, M. S. (2021). Discourse structure, constructions and regional variation. In Bouzouita, M., Enghels, R., & Vanderscheuren, C., eds., Convergence and Divergence in Ibero-Romance across Contact Situations and Beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 245–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirata-Vale, F. B. M., Oliveira, T. P., & Silva, C. F. (2017). Construções insubordinadas no português do Brasil: completivas e condicionais em análise. Odisséia, 2, 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, J. I. & Prieto, P. (2015). Intonational variation in Spanish: European and American varieties. In Frota, S. & Prieto, P., eds., Intonational Variation in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 350–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. (2016). On the grammatical status of insubordinate if-clauses. In Kaltenböck, G., Keizer, E., & Lohmann, A., eds., Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 341–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lastres-López, C. (2020). Subordination and insubordination in contemporary spoken English: If-clauses as a case in point. English Today, 36(2), 48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N. (2012). A usage-based analysis of the causative construction with doen in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch. Constructions and Frames, 4, 76–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Grammatical constructions in dialogue. In Berg, A. & Diewald, G., eds., Contexts and Constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E. (2016). Insubordinated conditionals in spoken and non-spoken Italian. In Evans, N. & Watanabe, H., eds., Insubordination. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). If it isn’t. Retrieved June 1, 2023 from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if%20it%20isn%27t.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (2008). The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language, 84(1), 69–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. (2019). Sources and mechanisms. In Beijering, K., Kaltenböck, G., & Sansiñena, M. S., eds., Insubordination: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montolío, E. (1999). ¡Si nunca he dicho que estuviera enamorada de él! Sobre construcciones independientes introducidas por si con valor replicativo. Oralia, 2, 37–70.Google Scholar
Montolío, E. (2001). ¡Si no he sido yo! On retortative si-clauses in conversational Spanish. In Bok-Bennema, R., de Jonge, B., Kampers-Manhe, B., & Molendijk, A. L., eds., Adverbial Modification. Leiden: Brill, pp. 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S., & Mikros, G. K. (2014). What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. (2010). Prosodic constructions in making complaints. In Barth-Weingarten, D., Reber, E., & Selting, M., eds., Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patard, A. (2014). Réflexions sur l’origine de l’insubordination. Le cas de trois insubordonnées hypothétiques du français. Langages, 4, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez, S., Gras, P., & Brisard, F. (2021). Semantic polyfunctionality and constructional networks: On insubordinate subjunctive complement constructions in Spanish. Constructions and Frames, 13(1), 82–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Porroche, M. (1998). Sobre algunos usos de que, si y es que como marcadores discursivos. In Martín Zorraquino, M. A. & Montolío, E., eds., Marcadores del discurso. Teoría y análisis. Madrid: Arco-Libros, pp. 229–241.Google Scholar
Prieto, P. & Roseano, P. (eds.) (2010). Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Robbeets, M. (2009). Insubordination in Altaic. Урало-алтайские исследования [Ural-Altaic Studies] 1(1), 61–79.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Ramalle, T. M. (2011). Sobre si y la organización del margen preverbal en español. Lingüística Española Actual, 33, 143–165.Google Scholar
Royo Viñuales, V. & Van Linden, A. (2022). Insubordinate hypothetical manner constructions in French and Spanish: A pilot study. Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium, 16(1), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadat-Tehrani, N. (2008). An intonational construction. Constructions. https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvador, V. (2002). Les construccions condicionals i les concesives. In Solà, J., ed., Gramàtica del català contemporani, III. Barcelona: Empúries, pp. 2977–3025.Google Scholar
Sansiñena, M. S. (2015). The Multiple Functional Load of que: An Interactional Approach to Insubordinate Complement Clauses in Spanish. PhD thesis. University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Sansiñena, M. S., De Smet, H., & Cornillie, B. (2015a). Between subordinate and insubordinate: Paths towards complementizer-initial main clauses. Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sansiñena, M. S., De Smet, H., & Cornillie, B. (2015b). Displaced directives. Subjunctive free-standing que-clauses vs. imperatives in Spanish. Folia Linguistica, 49(1), 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, S. (1998). Sobre la sintaxis de una construcción coloquial: oraciones independientes con si. Anuari de Filologia, F9, 87–100.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S. (2016). Meaning and interaction in Spanish independent si-clauses. Language Sciences, 58, 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemund, P. (2018). Speech Acts and Clause Types: English in a Cross-Linguistic Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vallauri, E. L. (2016). Insubordinated conditionals in spoken and non-spoken Italian. In Evans, N. & Watanabe, H., eds., Insubordination. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanrell, M. M., Feldhausen, I., & Astruc, L. (2018). The Discourse Completion Task in Romance prosody research: Status quo and outlook. In Feldhausen, I., Fliessbach, J., & Vanrell, M. M., eds., Methods in Prosody: A Romance Language Perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 191–227.Google Scholar
Verstraete, J.-C., D’Hertefelt, S., & Van Linden, A. (2012). A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language, 36(1), 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, N. G. (2019). Prosodic Patterns in English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wide, C. (2014). Constructions as resources in interaction: Syntactically unintegrated att ‘that’-clauses in spoken Swedish. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 353–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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 Scholar
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

References

Brentari, D. & Padden, D. (2001). Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. In Brentari, D., ed., Foreign Vocabulary in Sign Language: A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Word Formation. Norwood: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 87–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Tannen, D., ed., Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 35–53.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (2003). Pointing and placing. In Kita, S., ed., Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. Mahwah: Psychology Press, pp. 243–268.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2009). The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2013). A ‘composite utterances’ approach to meaning. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., & Tessendorf, S., eds., Handbook of Body-Language-Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 689–707.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1993). Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: SIGNUM-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fenlon, J., Schembri, A., & Cormier, K. (2018). Modification of indicating verbs in British Sign Language: A corpus-based study. Language, 94(1), 84–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51, 676–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frishberg, N. & Gough, B. (2000). Morphology in American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 3(1), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hou, L. (2022a). A usage-based proposal for argument structure of directional verbs in American Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.808493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hou, L. (2022b). LOOKing for multi-word expressions in American Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(2), 291–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T. (1999). The grammaticization of topics in American Sign Language. Studies in Language, 23(2), 271–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T. (2012). Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Steinbach, M., Pfau, R., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 816–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T. (2017). Composite utterances in a signed language: Topic constructions and perspective-taking in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(3), 511–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T., O’Dea, B., & Shaffer, B. (2001). The construal of events: Passives in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 1(3), 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T. & Shaffer, B. (2002). Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In Meier, R., Quinto, D., & Cormier, K., eds., Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarque, M. J. & Pascual, E. (2015). Direct discourse expressing evidential values in Catalan Sign Language. eHumanista/IVITRA, 8, 421–445.Google Scholar
Jarque, M. J. & Pascual, E. (2016). Mixed viewpoints in factive and fictive discourse in Catalan Sign Language narratives. In Dancygier, B., Lu, W., & Verhagen, A., eds., Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, A. A. (2019). Rethinking agreement: Cognition-to-form mapping. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(1), 37–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, H. (1984). When the Mind Hears: A History of the Deaf. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Lane, H. & Grosjean, F. (1980). Recent Perspectives on American Sign Language. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2003). Constructions in Cognitive Grammar. English Linguistics, 20(1), 41–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. Ruiz & Cervel, M. S. Peña, eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 101–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2016). Nominal Structure in Cognitive Grammar. Lublin: Marie-Curie Skłodowska University Press.Google Scholar
Lepic, R. & Occhino, C. (2018). A construction morphology approach to sign language analysis. In Booij, G., ed., The Construction of Words: Advances in Construction Morphology. Cham: Springer, pp. 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (1990). Four functions of a locus: Reexamining the structure of space in ASL. In Lucas, C., ed., Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 176–198.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2000). Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. In Emmorey, K. & Lane, H., eds., The Signs of Language Revisited: An Anthology to Honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 303–320.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2011). Agreement disagreements. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(3–4), 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, R. & Wilcox, S. (2019). Pointing and placing: Nominal grounding in Argentine Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(1), 85–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padden, C. A. (1986). Verbs and role-shifting in American Sign Language. In Padden, C., ed., Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching. Silver Spring: National Association of the Deaf, pp. 44–57.Google Scholar
Pfau, R. & Steinbach, M. (2011). Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 683–695.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E. G. (1987). Duality of patterning: Responding to Armstrong & Stokoe. Sign Language Studies, 55, 175-181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2007). Can constructed action be considered obligatory. Lingua, 117(7), 1285–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schembri, A., Cormier, K., & Fenlon, J. (2018). Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Glossa, 3(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1981). Tense variation in narrative. Language, 57(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, B. (2012). Reported speech as an evidentiality strategy in American Sign Language. In Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E., eds., Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. (2005). Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 3–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supalla, T. (1986). The classifier system in American sign language. In Craig, C. G., ed., Noun Classes and Categorization: Proceedings of a Symposium on Categorization and Noun Classification, Eugene, Oregon, October 1983. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 181–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1986). Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative. In Coulmas, F., ed., Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar
Van Hoek, K. (1997). Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. (2013). The point of agreement: Changing how we think about sign language, gesture, and agreement. Sign Language and Linguistics, 16(2), 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. (2004). Gesture and language: Cross-linguistic and historical data from signed languages. Gesture, 4(1), 43–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. (2005). Routes from gesture to language. Revista da ABRALIN – Associação Brasileira de Lingüística, 4, 11–45.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. & Martínez, R. (2020). The conceptualization of space: Places in signed language discourse. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1406. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilcox, S, Martínez, R., & Morales, D. (2022). The conceptualization of space in signed languages: Placing the signer in narratives. In Jucker, A. & Hausendorf, H., eds., Pragmatics of Space. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 63–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. & Occhino, C. (2016). Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(3), 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. & Shaffer, B. (2017). Evidentiality and information source in signed languages. In Aikhenvald, A. Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 741–754.Google Scholar
Winston, B. (1995). Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In Emmorey, K. & Reilly, J., eds., Language, Gesture, and Space. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 87–114.Google 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
×