Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2018: 2.09

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.075
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 2.063

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 28, Issue 3


How politicians express different viewpoints in gesture and speech simultaneously

Douglas Guilbeault
Published Online: 2017-08-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0086


Political speeches are a prime example of how discourse often requires speakers to convey multiple competing viewpoints, both their own and others’. Cognitive linguists have shown how, in speech, speakers express viewpoint through individual choices at the lexical and grammatical level. Recently, cognitive linguists have also shown that speakers express viewpoint using speech-accompanying gestures. To date, the study of viewpoint expression has focused on cases where speakers deliver the same viewpoint across modalities. By examining the persuasive uses of gesture in Obama’s A More Perfect Union speech, I show how speakers can communicate multiple different viewpoints across gesture and speech, simultaneously. There are moments when Obama expresses his opponents’ viewpoint in speech, while framing them in terms of his own viewpoint in gesture, and vice versa. I discuss how the deviation of viewpoints across modalities provides key insights into multimodal cognition, with respect to working memory, metaphor, and persuasion. Specifically, I argue that, as an implicit medium, gesture allows speakers to inject viewpoint into the uptake of speech, below the conscious radar of recipients, and I discuss how this rhetorical capacity is evolving as a result of communication technologies.

Keywords: viewpoint; gesture; metaphor; persuasion; cognition


  • Atkinson, M. 1984. Our masters’ voices: The language and body language of politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Atkinson, M. 2005. Lend me your ears: All you need to know about making speeches and presentations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bailenson, J. N., A. C. Beall & J. Loomis. 2005. Transformed social interaction, augmented gaze, and social influence in immersive virtual environments. Human Communication Research 31(4). 511–537.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Translated by Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

  • Barr, Dale & Boaz Keysar. 2007. Perspective taking and the coordination of meaning in language use. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn., 901–938. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Bates, Elizabeth. 1979. The emergence of symbols. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Bergen, Ben. 2012. Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Broaders, Sara & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2010. Truth is at hand: How gesture adds information during investigative interviews. Psychological Science 21. 623–628.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brookshire, Geoffrey & Daniel Casasanto. 2012. Motivation and motor control: Hemispheric specialization for approach motivation reverses with handedness. PLoS ONE 7(4). (accessed February 8, 2014).Google Scholar

  • Bullowa, M. (ed.). 1979. Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bulwer, J. 1644. Chirologia, or the natural language of the hand. London: Thomas Harper.Google Scholar

  • Calbris, Geneviève. 2008. From left to right… Coverbal gestures and their symbolic use of space. In Cornelia Müller & Alan Cienki (eds.), Metaphor and gesture (Gesture Studies 3), 27–55. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Cappella, J. N. & S. Planalp. 1981. Talk and silence sequences in informal conversations III: Interspeaker influence. Human Communication Research 7. 117–132.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Casasanto, Daniel. 2008. Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind? Memory & Cognition 36(6). 1047–1056.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Casasanto, Daniel. 2009. The embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in left and right handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 138(3). 351–367.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Casasanto, Daniel & Kyle Jasmin. 2010. Good and bad in the hands of politicians: Spontaneous gestures during positive and negative speech. PLoS ONE 5(7). e11805. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Caso, Letizia, Fridanna Maricchiolo & Marino Bonaiuto. 2006. The impact of deception and suspicion on different hand movements. Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour 30(1). 1–19.Google Scholar

  • Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2014. Analyzing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

  • Chatterjee, Anjan. 2010. Disembodying cognition. Language and Cognition 2(1). 79–116.Google Scholar

  • Chemero, Anthony. 2009. Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Cook, Susan Wagner, Zachary Mitchell & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2008. Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition 106. 1047–1058.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cook, Susan Wagner, Terina Kuang Yi Yip & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2012. Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math. Language and Cognitive Processes 27(4). 594–610.Google Scholar

  • Cooperrider, Kensy. 2014. Body-directed gestures: Pointing to the self and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics 71. 1–16. doihttp://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.003Crossref

  • Cornejo, Carlos, Franco Simonetti, Augstin Ibanez, Nerea Aldunate, Francisco Ceric, Vladimir Lopez & Rafael Nunez. 2009. Gesture and metaphor comprehension: Electrophysiological evidence of cross-modal coordination by audiovisual stimulation. Brain and Cognition 70. 42–52.Google Scholar

  • Dael, Nele, Martijn Goudbeek & K. R. Scherer. 2013. Perceived gesture dynamics in nonverbal expression of emotion. Perception 42(6). 642–657.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dancygier, Barbara. 2008. Personal pronouns, blending, and narrative viewpoint. In A. Tyler, K. Yiyoung & M. Takada (eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language, 167–182. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Dancygier, Barbara. 2012. The language of stories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dancygier, Barbara, José Sanders & Lieven Vandelanotte (eds.). 2012. Textual choices in discourse: A view from cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser (eds.). 2012. Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser. 2014. Figurative language (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dancygier, Barbara & Lieven Vandelanotte. 2016. Discourse viewpoint as network. In Barbara Dancygier, Lu Wei-Lun & Arie Verhagen (eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities, 13–41. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Dancygier, Barbara, Lu Wei-Lun & Arie Verhagen (eds.). 2016. Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • David-Barrett, T. & R. I. M. Dunbar. 2013. Processing power limits social group size: Computational evidence for the cognitive costs of sociality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280(1765). http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1765/20131151

  • Davidse, Kristin & Lieven Vandelanotte. 2011. Tense use in direct and indirect speech in English. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1). 236–250.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Detz, Joan. 2002. How to write & give a speech: A practical guide for executives, PR people, the military, fund-raisers, politicians, educators, and anyone who has to make every word count. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.Google Scholar

  • Dittrich, W. H., T. Troscianko, S. E. G. Lee & Dawn Morgan. 1996. Perception of emotion from dynamic point light displays represented in dance. Perception 25. 727–738.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fabien, Mathy. 2012. What’s magic about magic numbers? Chunking and data compression in short-term memory. Cognition 122(3). 346–362.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fauconnier, Gilles. 2003. Polarity and the scale principle. In Javier Gutierrez-Rexach (ed.), Semantics: Critical concepts in linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Martin & Rolf A. Zwaan. 2008. Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61. 825–850.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fox, R. & C. McDaniel. 1982. The perception of biological motion by human infants. Science 218. 486–487.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Franklin, Amy. 2007. Blending in deception: Tracing output back to its source. In Susan D. Duncan, Justine Cassell & Elena T. Levy (eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language (Gesture Studies 1), 99–108. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fukada, Chie. 2016. The dynamic interplay between words and pictures in picture storybooks: How visual and verbal information interact and affect the readers’ viewpoint and understanding. In Barbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu & Arie Verhagen (eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities, 217–236. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Gallagher, S. 2005. How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Gerofsky, Susan. 2010. Mathematical learning and gesture: Character viewpoint and observer viewpoint in students’ gestured graphs of functions. Gesture 10(2/3). 321–343.Google Scholar

  • Goldin-Meadow, Susan, San Kim & Melissa Singer. 1999. What the teacher’s hands tell the student’s mind about math. Journal of Educational Psychology 91. 720–730.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goldin-Meadow, Susan & Susan M. Wagner. 2005. How our hands help us learn. Trends in Cognitive Science 9. 234–241.Google Scholar

  • Goodrich Smith, Whitney & Carla L. Hudson Kam. 2015. Children’s use of gesture in ambiguous pronoun interpretation. Journal of Child Language 42(3). 591–617. doi:http://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000915000045Crossref

  • Goodrich, Whitney & Carla L. Hudson Kam. 2009. Co-speech gesture as input in verb learning. Development Science 12. 81–87.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gottfried, J. & E. Shearer. 2016. News across social media platforms 2016. http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/

  • Gumperz, John (ed.). 1983. Language and social identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hostetter, Autumn & Martha Alibali. 2010. Language, gesture, action! A test of the gesture as simulated action framework. Journal of Memory and Language 63. 245–257.Google Scholar

  • Hubbard, Amy, Stephen Wilson, Daniel Callan & Mirella Deprette. 2009. Giving speech a hand: Gesture modulates activity in auditory cortex during speech perception. Human Brain Mapping 30. 1028–1037.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ishino, Mika. 2007. Intersubjectivity in gestures: The speaker’s perspective toward the addressee. In Susan D. Duncan, Justine Cassell & Elena T. Levy (eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language (Gesture Studies 1), 243–250. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Israel, Michael. 2011. The grammar of polarity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kelly, Spencer, Asli Özyürek & Eric Maris. 2010. Two sides of the same coin: Speech and gesture mutually interact to enhance comprehension. Psychological Science 21. 260–267.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kemp, Charles & Terry Regier. 2012. Kinship categories across languages reflect general communicative principles. Science 366. 1049–1054.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kendon, Adam. 1980. Gesture and speech: Two aspects of the same process of utterance. In M. R. Key (ed.), Nonverbal communication and language, 207–227. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Kendon, Adam. 1982. The study of gesture: Some observations on its history. Recherches Sémiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry 2. 45–62.Google Scholar

  • Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kendon, Adam. 2014. The ‘poly-modalic’ nature of utterances and its relevance for inquiring into language origins. In Daniel Dor, Chris Knight & Jerome Lewis (eds.), The social origins of language, 67–76. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kopp, S. & K. Bergmann. 2013. Automatic and strategic alignment of co-verbal gestures in dialogue. In I. Wachsmuth, J. De Ruiter, P. Jaecks & S. Kopp (eds.), Alignment in communication: Towards a new theory of communication (Advances in Interaction Studies 6), 57–87. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Krieken, Kobie van, José Sanders & Hans Hoeken. 2016. Blended viewpoints, mediated witnesses: A cognitive linguistic approach to news narratives. In Barbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu & Arie Verhagen (eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities, 41–92. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 2008. The neuroscience of metaphoric gestures: Why they exist. In Cornelia Müller & Alan Cienki (eds.), Metaphor and gesture (Gesture Studies 3), 283–291. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 2012. Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science 4. 1–13.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics 13(2). 245–263.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Subjectication. Cognitive Linguistics 1. 5–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald. 1995. Viewing in cognition and grammar. In Philip W. Davis (ed.), Alternative linguistics. Descriptive and theoretical modes (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 102), 153–212. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Liddell, Scott. 1990. Four functions of a locus: Re-examining the structure of space in ASL. Ciel Lucs (ed.), Research in sign language: Theoretical issues, 176–198. Washington: Gallaudet Press.Google Scholar

  • Liddell, Scott. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lloyd, G. 1966. Polarity and analogy: Two types of argumentation in early Greek thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mandler, Jean & Cánovas. Cristóbal 2014. On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition 0. 1–23. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mayer, Richard E. & Roxana Moreno. 2003. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist 38(1). 43–52.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McClave, Evelyn, 2000. When you means I: Manual and nonmanual gestures and shifting participation frameworks. In Joy Kreeft Peyton, Peg Griffin, Walt Wolfram & Ralph Fasold (eds.), Language in action: New studies of language in society, Essays in Honor of Roger W. Shuy, 247–259. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar

  • McDermott, Kathleen, Cynthia Wooldridge, Heather Rice, Jeffrey Berg & Karl Szpunar. 2016. Visual perspective in remembering and episodic future thought. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(2). 243–253.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McManus, Chris. 2002. Right hand, left hand: The origins of asymmetry in brains, bodies, atoms and cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • McNeill, David. 1985. So you think gesture is nonverbal? Psychological Review 92(3). 350–371.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • McNeill, David (ed.). 2005. Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • McNeill, David & Susan D. Duncan. 2000. Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In David McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 141–161. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Melinger, Alissa & Sotaro Kita. 2007. Conceptualization load triggers gesture production. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(4). 473–500.Google Scholar

  • Merola, Giorgio. 2009. The effects of gesture viewpoint on the student’s memory of words and stories. Gesture-based human-computer interaction and simulation lecture notes in computer science 5085. 272–281.Google Scholar

  • Miller, George. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2). 81–97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia. 2004. Forms and uses of the palm up open hand: A case of a gesture family? In Cornelia Müller & Roland Posner (eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of everyday gesture. Berlin: Weilder Buchverlag.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia. 2008. Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Narayan, Shweta. 2012. Maybe what it means is he actually got the spot: Physical and cognitive viewpoint in a gesture study. Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 113–139. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Obama, Barak. 2008. A more perfect union. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobamaperfectunion.htm For video see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU&t=1047s

  • Özyürek, Asli, Sotaro Kita, Shanley Allen, Reyhan Furman & Amanda Brown. 2005. How does the linguistic framing of events influence co-speech gestures? Insight from cross-linguistic variations and similarities. Gesture 5(1/2). 219–240.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Özyürek, Asli, Roel Willems, Sortaro Kita & Peter Hagoort. 2007. On-line integration of semantic information from speech and gesture: Insights from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19. 605–616.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Parrill, Fey. 2009. Dual viewpoint gestures. Gesture 9(3). 271–289.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Parrill, Fey. 2011. The relation between the encoding of motion event information and viewpoint in English-accompanying gestures. Gesture 11(1). 61–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Parrill, Fey. 2012. Interactions between discourse status and viewpoint in co-speech gesture. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 97–122. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ping, Raedy & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2010. Gesturing saves cognitive resources when talking about nonpresent objects. Cognitive Science 34(4). 602–619.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Poggi, Isabella & Catherine Pelachaud. 2008. Persuasion and the expressivity of ecas. In I. Wachsmuth, M. Lenzen, & G. Knoblich (eds.), Embodied communication in humans and machines, 391–424. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Proctor, Robert & Yang Cho. 2006. Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin 132(3). 416–442.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rauscher, Frances, Robert Krauss & Yihsiu Chen. 1996. Gesture, speech, and lexical access: The role of lexical movements in speech production. Psychological Science 7(4). 226–231.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Reddy, Vasudevi. 2008. How infants know minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Rotstein, Gary. 2008. Another left-handed president? It’s looking that way. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. February 25. http://www.post-gazette.com/morning-file/2008/02/25/Another-left-handed-president-It-s-looking-that-way/stories/200802250187 (accessed March 1, 2014).

  • Sanders, José. 2012. Intertwined voices: Journalists’ modes of representing source information in journalistic subgenres. In Barbara Dancygier, José Sanders & Lieven Vandelanotte (eds.), Textual choices in discourse: A view from cognitive linguistics, 87–111. Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Sanders, José & Gisela Redeker. 1996. Perspective and the representation of speech and thought in narrative discourse. In Gilles Fauconnier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar, 290–318. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Sidnell, Jack. 2006. Coordinating gesture, talk and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39(4). 377–409.Google Scholar

  • Skipper, Jeremey, Susan Goldin-Meadow & Steven Nusbaum. 2009. Gestures orchestrate brain networks for language understanding. Current Biology 19(8). 661–667.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stec, Kashmiri. 2012. Meaningful shifts: A review of viewpoint markers in gesture and sign language. Gesture 12(3). 327–360.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steen, Francis & Mark Turner. 2012. Multimodal construction grammar. In Michael Borkent, Barbara Dancygier & Jennifer Hinnell (eds.), Language and the creative mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Streeck, Jürgen. 2008. Gesture in political communication: A case study of the democratic presidential candidates during the 2004 primary campaign. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2). 154–186.Google Scholar

  • Street, Richard L., Jr. & Joseph N. Cappella. 1989. Social linguistic factors influencing adaptation in children’s speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18(5). 497–519.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sweetser, Eve. 1998. Regular metaphoricity in gesture: Bodily-based models of speech interaction. Actes du 16e Congrès International des Linguistes (CD-ROM), Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Sweetser, Eve. 2013. Creativity across modalities in viewpoint-construction. In Michael Borkent, Barbara Dancygier & Jennifer Hinnell (eds.), Language and the creative mind, 239–254. Stanford, US: CSLI publications.Google Scholar

  • Sweetser, Eve. & Şeyda Özçalışkan (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Studies in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, 357–366. New York & Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

  • Sweetser, Eve & Kashmiri Stec. 2016. Maintaining multiple viewpoints with gaze. In Barbara Dancygier, Lu Wei-Lun & Arie Verhagen (eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities, 237–258. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Grammar from the perspective of cognitive semantics. In Fernandez-Vest (ed.), Grammaticalisation areal et semantique cognitive: Le langues fenniques et sames, 17–25. Tallinn, Estonia: Foundation of the Estonian Language.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 2003. The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign language, 169–196. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Tomasello, Michael. 2014. A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Turner, Mark. 1991. Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Turner, Mark. 1998. Figure. In A. N. Katz, C. Cacciari & M. Turner (eds.), Figurative language and thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2012a. ‘Wait till you got started’: How to submerge another’s discourse in your own. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 198–218. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2012b. Quotative go and be like: Grammar and grammaticalization. In I. Buchstaller & I. Van Alphen (eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives 15, 173–202. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2015. “More than one way at once”: Simultaneous viewpoints in text and image. In A. Benedek & K. Nyíri (eds.), Beyond words: Pictures, parables, paradoxes, 75–81. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Vanderbiesen, Jeroen. 2016. Mixed viewpoints and the quotative-reportive cline in German: Reported speech and reportive evidentiality. In Barbara Dancygier, Lu Wei-Lun & Arie Verhagen (eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities, 41–92. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wilson, Nicole & Raymond Gibbs. 2007. Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science 31. 721–731.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Winter, Bodo & Teenie Matlock. 2013. Making judgments based on similarity and proximity. Metaphor and Symbol 28. 219–232.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wu, Choon Ying & Seana Coulson. 2007. Iconic gestures prime related concepts: An ERP study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14(1). 57–63.Google Scholar

  • Wu, Choon Ying & Seana Coulson. 2014. Co-speech iconic gestures and visuo-spatial working memory. Acta Psychologica 153. 39–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zwaan, Rolf. 2004. The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation 44, 35–62. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-08-05

Accepted: 2017-03-24

Revised: 2017-02-03

Published Online: 2017-08-04

Published in Print: 2017-08-28

This work was supported by The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, (Grant/Award Number: ‘Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada PhD Scholarship’).

Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 417–447, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0086.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in