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

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

1 Issue per year

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory

Thomas Hoffmann
  • Corresponding author
  • Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt – English and American Studies, Universitätsallee 1, Eichstätt 85072, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-06-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0042


Language is a symbolic system, whose basic units are arbitrary and conventionalized pairings of form and meaning. In fact, in light of substantive empirical evidence, Construction Grammar approaches advocate the view that not only words but all levels of grammatical description – from morphemes, words, and idioms to abstract phrasal patterns as well as larger discourse patterns – comprise form-meaning pairings, which are collectively referred to as constructions. In this paper, I will discuss the status of multimodal usage-events (multimodal constructs) for the potential entrenchment of multimodal constructions and their implications for human cognition in general. As I will argue, constructionist approaches need to pay more attention to the role of the working memory in assembling and interpreting constructions. Drawing on verbal as well as gesture constructions, I will show that it is essential to distinguish entrenched constructions that are stored in the long-term memory from form-meaning pairings that are assembled in the working memory (online constructions). Once this distinction is made, the precise role of multimodal constructs and the nature of multimodal constructions can finally be disentangled.

Keywords: cognitive linguistics; construction grammar; multimodal constructions


  • Andrén, Mats. 2010. Children’s gestures from 18 to 30 months. PhD thesis. Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature.Google Scholar

  • Armstrong, Nancy & Melissa Wagner. 2003. Field guide to gestures – how to identify and interpret virtually every gesture known to man. Philadelphia, PA: Quirk Books.Google Scholar

  • Auer, Peter & Stefan Pfänder. 2011. Constructions: Emergent or emerging? In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent, 1–21. Berlin: de Gruyter. (= Linguae et Litterae Bd. 6).Google Scholar

  • Bartlett, Frederic Charles. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bergen, Benjamin K. & Nancy Chang. 2013. Embodied construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), 168–190.Google Scholar

  • Boas, Hans C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Boas, Hans C. 2005. Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: A reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language 81(2). 448–464.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boas, Hans C., Ivan A. Sag (eds.). 2012. Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Brandt, Per Aage & Jakob Simonsen. 2007. Editorial preface. Cognitive Semiotics 1. 5–6.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82. 711–733.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), 49–69.Google Scholar

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

  • Cowan, Nelson. 2008. What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? Progress in Brain Research 169. 323–333.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2013. Radical construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), 211–232.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William & Alan D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 543–71.Google Scholar

  • de Saussure, Ferdinand. 2006 [1916]. Course in general linguistics, Ed. Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye. Trans. Roy Harris. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

  • Deacon, Terrence. 1997. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the human brain. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

  • Diamond, Adele. 2013. Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology 64. 135–168.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ekman, Paul & Wallace V. Friesen. 1969. The repertoire of nonverbal behaviour: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica 1. 49–98.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Elforn, David. 1941. Gesture and environment. New York: King’s Crown Press.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, Nick C. 2013. Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), 365–378.Google Scholar

  • Fabbri-Destro, Maddalena, Pietro Avanzini, Elisa De Stefani, Alessandro Innocenti, Cristina Campi & Maurizio Gentilucci. 2015. Interaction between words and symbolic gestures as revealed by N400. Brain Topography 28(4). 591–605.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. Berkeley Linguistic Society 11. 73–86.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar’. Berkeley Linguistic Society 14. 35–55.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary C. O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steen, Francis & Mark Turner. 2013. Multimodal construction grammar. In M. Borkent, B. Dancygier & J. Hinnell (eds.), Language and the creative mind, 255–274. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Franck, Dorothea. 1985. Sentences in conversational turns: A case of syntactic ‘double bind’. In M. Dascal (ed.), Dialogue. An Interdisciplinary Approach, 233–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), 15–31.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–568.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Data in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), 99–100.Google Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Thomas. 2011. Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Thomas. 2013. Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), 307–328.Google Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Thomas. 2014. Comparing English comparative correlatives. Post-Doc thesis, Osnabrück University.Google Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale (eds.). 2013. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul. 2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (De Gruyter linguae & litterae/Publications of the School of Language and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies 6), 22–44. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Imo, Wolfgang. 2015. Interactional construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard 2015. 1(1). 69–77.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 2013. Constructions in the parallel architecture. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), 70–92.Google Scholar

  • Jurafsky, Daniel. 1992. An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation. In American Association for Artificial Intelligence (eds.), Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-92). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 302–308.Google Scholar

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

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

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

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. Ruiz De Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 101–159. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

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

  • McNeill, David. 2000. Introduction. In D. McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 141–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • McNeill, David. 2016. Why we gesture: The surprising role of hand movements in communication. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2013. The exbodied mind: Cognitive-semiotic principles as motivating forces in gesture. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill & S. Teßendorf (eds.), Body – language – communication (HSK 38.1), 755–784. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia. 1998. Redebegleitende Gesten: Kulturgeschichte – Theorie – Sprachvergleich. Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz.Google Scholar

  • Pagán Cánovas, Cristóbal & Mihailo Antovic. 2016. Formulaic creativity: Oral poetics and cognitive grammar. Language and Communication 47. 66–74.Google Scholar

  • Schoonjans, Steven. 2014. Modalpartikeln als multimodale Konstruktionen. Eine korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. Unpublished dissertation. University of Leuven.Google Scholar

  • Schoonjans, Steven, Geert Brône & Kurt Feyaerts. 2015. Multimodalität in der Konstruktionsgrammatik: Eine kritische Betrachtung illustriert anhand einer Gestikanalyse der Partikel einfach. In Jörg Bücker, Wolfgang Imo & Susanne Günthner (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V, 291–308. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar

  • Steels, Luc. 2013. Fluid construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), 152–167.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2013. Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), 290–306.Google Scholar

  • Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition: An essay. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • van Trijp, Remi. 2015. Towards bidirectional processing models of sign language: A constructional approach in fluid construction grammar. In: G. Airenti, B. G. Bara & G. Sandini (eds.), Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science. Turin: University of Torino, 668–673.Google Scholar

  • Zima, E. in press. Multimodal constructional resemblance. The case of English circular motion constructions. In F. J. Ruiz De Mendoza Ibáñez, A. Luzondo & P. Pérez-Sobrino (eds.), Constructing families of constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Zima, Elisabeth. 2014. 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

About the article

Received: 2016-08-01

Accepted: 2016-09-27

Published Online: 2017-06-29

Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 3, Issue s1, 20160042, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0042.

Export Citation

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

Thomas Hoffman and Alexander Bergs
CogniTextes, 2018, Number 18
Francis F. Steen, Anders Hougaard, Jungseock Joo, Inés Olza, Cristóbal Pagán Cánovas, Anna Pleshakova, Soumya Ray, Peter Uhrig, Javier Valenzuela, Jacek Woźny, and Mark Turner
Linguistics Vanguard, 2018, Volume 4, Number 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in