Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton June 29, 2017

Apposition: A multimodal construction? The multimodality of linguistic constructions in the light of usage-based theory

Jens Philipp Lanwer
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to address some methodological questions arising in the framework of usage-based construction grammar facing the multimodality of language use. These questions will be discussed with respect to different patterns of head nods accompanying different appositional patterns in spoken German.

Acknowledgement

The paper originated in the context of the research project “Interactional grammar: appositions and apposition-like constructions in spoken German between interactional practice and syntactic pattern” (IM 122/2-1) founded by the DFG. For proofreading the text I would like to thank Georgios Coussios and David Hünlich.

Conventions used for multimodal transcription

Temporal structure and alignment

. .. ...period of preparation in ms (1 ms, 2 ms, 3 ms etc.)
⁃ ⁃⁃ ⁃⁃⁃period of holding in ms (1 ms, 2 ms, 3 ms etc.)
, ,, ,,,period of retraction in ms (1 ms, 2 ms, 3 ms etc.)
{}kine
°{}kine begins before the excerpts beginning
⁃⁃⁃°holding of kine after ending
*indexes the point of alignment of a posture in the verbal transcription

Specified coding of head movements

MotionAxis
NoneVerticalHorizontalSagittal
None
Rotation<>\/
Translation

Left symbol: left, upward or backward; right symbol: right, downward or forward (according to axis and motion)

Additional symbols

!heavy
?slightly
+intensified
weakened

References

Acuña Fariña, J. C. 2006. A constructional network in appositive space. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1). 1–37.10.1515/COG.2006.001Search in Google Scholar

Auer, P. 2002. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. InList 33.10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7Search in Google Scholar

Bergen, B. K. & N. Chang. 2005. Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 147–190. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/cal.3.08berSearch in Google Scholar

Birdwhistell, R. L. 1970. Kinesics and context. Essays on body motion communication. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.10.9783/9780812201284Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612886Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 49–69. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004Search in Google Scholar

Cienki, A. 2015. Spoken language usage events. Language and Cognition 7(4). 499–514.10.1017/langcog.2015.20Search in Google Scholar

Clark, A. 2011. Supersizing the mind. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, W. 2000. Explaining language change. Harlow: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. 2006. Construction grammar – Eine Grammatik für die Interaktion. In A. Deppermann, R. Fiehler & T. Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang zwischen grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen, 43–65. Radolfszell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, H. 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486531Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, H. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 296–322. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110292022-015Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511624582Search in Google Scholar

Freienstein, J. C. 2008. Das erweiterte Appositiv. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/z.74Search in Google Scholar

Green, K. P. 1998. The use of auditory and visual information during phonetic processing: Implications for theories of speech perception. In R. Campbell, D. Barbara & D. Burnham (eds.), Hearing by eye II. Advances in the psychology of speechreading and auditory-visual speech, 3–25. East Sussex: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hutchby, I. & R. Wooffitt. 2010. Conversation analysis, 2nd edn, re. Cambridge: Polity.Search in Google Scholar

Imo, W. 2007. Der Zwang zur Kategorienbildung: Probleme der Anwendung der Construction Grammar bei der Analyse gesprochener Sprache. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion 8. 22–45.Search in Google Scholar

Imo, W. 2014. Appositions in monologue, increments in dialogue? On appositions and apposition-like patterns and their status as constructions. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, 323–353. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110366273.321Search in Google Scholar

Imo, W. 2015. Zwischen Construction Grammar und Interaktionaler Linguistik: Appositionen und appo-sitionsähnliche Konstruktionen. In A. Lasch & A. Ziem (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV, 91–112. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar

Jacomy, M., T. Venturini, S. Heymann & M. Bastian 2014. ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the gephi software. PLoS ONE 9. 6.10.1371/journal.pone.0098679Search in Google Scholar

Jäger, L. 2003. Probleme der linguistischen Gegenstandkonstitution. In A. Linke, H. Ortner & P. R. Portmann-Tselikas (eds.), Sprache und mehr: Ansichten einer Linguistik der sprachlichen Praxis, 67–97. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110911985.67Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1–38.10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1997. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8(1). 1–32.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 2001. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 143–188.10.1515/cogl.12.2.143Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 2013. Essentials of cognitive grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lanwer, J. P. 2015. Allegro oder usuell? Zum Status sogenannter “Allegroformen” aus Sicht einer gebrauchsbasierten Linguistik. In M. Elmentaler, M. Hundt & J. E. Schmidt (eds.), Deutsche Dialekte. Konzepte, Probleme, Handlungsfelder, 169–190. Stuttgart: Steiner.Search in Google Scholar

Lanwer, J. P. In prep. Grammatikalität und Rekurrenz. Zur Rolle statistischer Verfahren im Rahmen einer “rekonstruktiven” Linguistik. In G. Albert & S. Diao-Klaeger (eds.), Mündlicher Sprachgebrauch zwischen Normorientierung und pragmatischen Spielräumen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar

Lanwer, J. P. Accepted. Koreferenz: eine Frage des common ground? Überlegungen zum Funktionsspektrum weiter Appositionen an der Schnittstelle von Interaktion und Kognition. Deutsche Sprache.Search in Google Scholar

Liberman, A. M. 1985. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21. 1–36.10.1016/0010-0277(85)90021-6Search in Google Scholar

Löbel, E. 1993. Zur Distribution und Abgrenzung von enger Apposition und Attribut. In M. Vuillaume, J.-F. Marillier & I. Behr (eds.), Studien zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalgruppe, 145–166. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar

Macdonald, J. & H. McGurk 1978. Visual influences on speech perception processes. Perception & Psychophysics 24(3). 253–257.10.3758/BF03206096Search in Google Scholar

McCLave, E. Z. 2000. Linguistic functions of head movements in the context of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 32.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00079-XSearch in Google Scholar

Meyer, C. F. 1992. Apposition in contemporary English. Studies in English language. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597824Search in Google Scholar

Molitor, F. 1979. Zur Apposition im heutigen Deutsch. Eine Vorstudie. Köln: Universität.Search in Google Scholar

Munhall, K. G., J. A. Jones, D. E. Callan, T. Kuratate & E. Vatikiotis-Bateson 2004. Visual prosody and speech intelligibility. Psychological Science 15(2). 133–137.10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502010.xSearch in Google Scholar

Paul, H. 1995 [1980]. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110929461Search in Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, J. B. 2001. Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In P. Hopper & J. L. Bybee (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–158. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.08pieSearch in Google Scholar

Prieto, P., C. Puglesi, J. Borräs-Comes, E. Arroyo & J. Blat 2015. Exploring the contribution of prosody and gesture to the perception of focus using an animated agent. Journal of Phonetics 49. 41–54.10.1016/j.wocn.2014.10.005Search in Google Scholar

Schindler, W. 1990. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik appositionsverdächtiger Einheiten im Deutschen. Linguistische Arbeiten.Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783111671956Search in Google Scholar

Stetter, C. 2002. Sprechen und Sprache: Überlegungen zu einem Grundlagenproblem der theoretischen Linguistik. In S. Krämer & E. König (eds.), In Gibt es eine Sprache hinter dem Sprechen? Frankfurt. 19–44. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Search in Google Scholar

Selting, M., et al. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion 10. 353–402.Search in Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Tummers, J., K. Heylen & D. Geeraerst. 2005. Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Lingustic Theory 1(2). 225–261.10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225Search in Google Scholar

Zifonun, G., L. Hoffmann & B. Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110872163Search in Google Scholar

Zima, E. 2014. Gibt es multimodale Konstruktionen? Eine Studie zu [V(motion) in circles] und [all the way from X PREP Y]. GesprächsforschungOnline-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion 15. 1–48.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-08-11
Accepted: 2016-10-31
Published Online: 2017-06-29

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Scroll Up Arrow