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 2017: 1.62

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 1.032
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.930

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 27, Issue 4


Cognitive Linguistics, gesture studies, and multimodal communication

Alan Cienki
  • Corresponding author
  • Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • The Multimodal Communication and Cognition Laboratory (PoliMod), Moscow State Linguistic University, Russia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-10-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0063


The fields of Cognitive Linguistics and gesture studies have begun to find each other of great interest in recent years. The cross-recognition is making for a healthy relationship because it is not a simple “mutual admiration society”, but a relation in which recognition of the other involves change and development on the part of each. Taking the usage-based tenet of Cognitive Linguistics seriously in light of video-recorded data of talk raises questions about the very object of study in Cognitive Linguistics, what its nature is, and what its scope is. The still nascient modern field of gesture studies calls for empirical research tied to the real life contexts of gesture use in order to gain a more complete picture of the phenomena “at hand”. Discussion of the place of studying multimodal communication within Cognitive Linguistics leads to consideration of broader political, economic, and sociological factors in academia which can play a role in determining the future of the field.

Keywords: usage-based; multimodal communication; spoken language; gesture


  • Appelbaum, Marc H. 2011. Amedeo Giorgi and psychology as a human science. NeuroQuantology 9(3). 518–525.Google Scholar

  • Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

  • Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 577–660.Google Scholar

  • Becker, Raymond, A. Cienki, A. Bennett, C. Cudina, C. Debras, Z. Fleischer, M. Haaheim, T. Müller, K. Stec & A. Zarcone. 2011. Aktionsarten, speech and gesture. In C. Kirchhof (ed.), Proceedings of GESPIN2011: Gesture and Speech in Interaction [http://gespin.amu.edu.pl/?q=node/66].

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

  • Boulenger, Véronique, Olaf Hauk & Friedemann Pulvermüller. 2009. Grasping ideas with the motor system: Semantic somatopy in idiom comprehension. Cerebral Cortex 19. 1905–1914.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Casasanto, Daniel & Roberto Bottini. 2014. Spatial language and abstract concepts. WIREs Cognitive Science 5(2). 139–149.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chenki, Alan. 2015. Ponjatie dinamicheskogo diapazona kommunikativnyx dejstvij v teorii kognitivnoj lingvistiki. Red. A. A. Kibrik et al. Jazyk i mysl’: Sovremmenaja kognitivnaja lingvistika, 560–573. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury. [Cienki, Alan. 2015. The notion of the dynamic scope of relevant behaviors in cognitive linguistic theory. In A. A. Kibrik, A. D. Koshelev, A. V. Kravchenko, Ju. V. Mazurova & O. V. Fedorova (eds.), Language and thought: Contemporary cognitive linguistics, 560–573. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture.]

  • Cienki, Alan. 1998. Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In J.-P. Koenig (ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, 189–204. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

  • Cienki, Alan. 2005. Gesture and the question of literal versus non-literal reference. In S. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.), The literal and nonliteral in language and thought, 281–298. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Cienki, Alan. 2010a. Gesture and (cognitive) linguistic theory. In R. Caballero Rodriguez & M. J. Pinar Sanz (eds.), Ways and modes of human communication, 45–56. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.Google Scholar

  • Cienki, Alan. 2010b. Review of Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction by Ronald W. Langacker (2008). Language 86(1). 229–232.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cienki, Alan. 2012. Usage events of spoken language and the symbolic units we (may) abstract from them. In J. Badio & K. Kosecki (eds.), Cognitive processes in language, 149–158. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Cienki, Alan. 2013a. Cognitive linguistics: Spoken language and gesture as expressions of conceptualization. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, S. Ladewig, D. McNeill & S. Teßendorf (eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction – Vol. 1, 182–201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Cienki, Alan. 2013b. Conceptual metaphor theory in light of research on gesture with speech. Cognitive Semiotics 5(1–2). 349–366.Google Scholar

  • Cienki, Alan. 2015. Spoken language usage events. Language and Cognition 7. 499–514.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cienki, Alan & Olga Iriskhanova (eds.). In preparation. Aspect across languages: Event construal in speech and gesture.

  • Cienki, Alan & Cornelia Müller (eds.). 2008a. Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Cienki, Alan & Cornelia Müller. 2008b. Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 483–502. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, 27–63. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Cook, Susan Wagner & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2009. Embodied communication: Speakers’ gestures affect listeners’ actions. Cognition 113. 98–104.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • de Ruiter, Jan P. 2000. The production of gesture and speech. In D. McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 284–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Du Bois, John W. 2003. Discourse and grammar. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure – Vol. 2, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Enfield, N. J. 2009. The anatomy of meaning: Speech, gesture, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Forceville, Charles. 2008. Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 462–482. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Garey, Howard B. 1957. Verbal aspect in French. Language 33(2). 91–110.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 2006. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language 21(3). 434–458.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Giorgi, Amedeo. 1970. Psychology as a human science: A phenomenologically based approach. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

  • Hostetter, Autumn B. & Martha W. Alibali. 2008. Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 15(3). 495–514.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Kita, Sotaro. 2000. How representational gestures help speaking. In D. McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 162–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kok, Kasper I. & Alan Cienki. 2016. Cognitive Grammar and gesture: Points of convergence, advances and challenges. Cognitive Linguistics 27(1). 67–100.Google Scholar

  • Kravchenko, Alexander. 2006. Cognitive linguistics, biology of cognition and biosemiotics: Bridging the gaps. Language Sciences 28. 51–75.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1(1). 39–74.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Linell, Per. 2005 The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins, and transformations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Marghetis, Tyler & Benjamin Bergen. 2014. Embodied meaning, inside and out: The coupling of gesture and mental simulation. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. Ladewig, D. McNeill & J. Bressem (eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction – Vol. 2, 2000–2008. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • McNeill, David. 1985. So you think gestures are 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 & Susan D. Duncan. 2000. Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In David McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 141–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • McNeill, David & Elena T. Levy. 1982. Conceptual representations in language activity and gesture. In R. Jarvella & W. Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action, 271–295. Chichester, UK: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

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

  • Nuyts, Jan. 2007. Cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 543–565. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Quinto-Pozos, D. 2007. Why does constructed action seem obligatory? An analysis of classifiers and the lack of articulator-referent correspondence. Sign Language Studies 7(4). 458–506.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roth, Wolff-Michael & Daniel V. Lawless. 2002. How does the body get into the mind? Human Studies 25. 333–358.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Slobin, Dan. 1987. Thinking for speaking. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 435–445. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

  • Slobin, Dan. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Streeck, Jürgen. 2009. Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

  • Taylor, John R. 1995 [1989]. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wilcox, Sherman. & André Nogueira Xavier. 2013. A framework for unifying spoken language, signed language, and gesture. Revista Todas as Letras 15(1). 88–110.Google Scholar

  • Wilson, Nicole L. & Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. 2007. Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science 31(4). 721–731.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zlatev, Jordan. Turning back to experience in cognitive linguistics via phenomenology. doi: .Crossref

About the article

Received: 2016-05-29

Revised: 2016-08-25

Accepted: 2016-08-25

Published Online: 2016-10-05

Published in Print: 2016-11-01

Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

Award identifier / Grant number: 14-48-00067

This research was supported by Russian Science Foundation grant #14-48-0067.

Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 603–618, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0063.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Dagmar Divjak, Natalia Levshina, and Jane Klavan
Cognitive Linguistics, 2016, Volume 27, Number 4, Page 447

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in