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

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

The “Negative-Assessment-Construction” – A multimodal pattern based on a recurrent gesture?

Jana Bressem
  • Corresponding author
  • Chemnitz University of Technology, Faculty of Humanities, Thüringer Weg 11, Chemnitz 09107, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Cornelia Müller
  • European University Viadrina, Faculty of Social and Cultural Sciences, Große Scharrnstr. 5915230 Frankfurt (Oder) Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-06-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0053

Abstract

This paper offers an analysis of a multimodal pattern of negative assessment, which takes as the starting point a particular recurrent gesture: the Throwing Away gesture. Recurrent gestures are characterized by a stabilized form-meaning pairing. In the case of the Throwing Away gesture, form and meaning are grounded in an “Away-Action-Scheme”: i. e., a socially shared, sedimented experience of removing unwanted objects at, on, or approaching a speaker’s body. Based on a cognitive-linguistic analysis of the gesture and its use in five different verbal contexts, we suggest that the Throwing Away gesture enters a verbo-kinesic construction that consists of the “Throwing Away Gesture + particles/negation/N/V/ADV”. The meaning of the verbo-kinesic construction is grounded in an embodied frame of experience in Fillmore’s sense: i. e., a schematized scene involving mundane actions, here ‘removals of unwanted objects’ (e. g., ‘Away-Action-Scenes’). Referring to Goldberg’s “Scene Encoding Hypothesis”, we propose that the “Negative-Assessment-Construction” designates scenes essential to human experience. With this focus, the paper puts forward a gesture-first account on verbo-kinesic constructions and suggests a possible candidate for such a multimodal pattern.

Keywords: multimodality; gesture; construction; scene; frame

References

  • Andrén, Mats. 2010. Children’s gestures from 18 to 30 months. Lund University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Andrén, Mats. 2014. Multimodal constructions in children: Is the headshake part of language? Gesture 14(2). 141–170.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bressem, Jana. submitted. Gesture-grammar-constructions.Google Scholar

  • Bressem, Jana, Silva H. Ladewig & Cornelia Müller. 2013. Linguistic annotation system for gestures (LASG). In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. (Handbooks of linguistics and communication science 38.1.), 1098–1125. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Bressem, Jana & Cornelia Müller. 2014a. The family of away gestures: Negation, refusal, and negative assessment. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Jana Bressem (eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Handbooks of linguistics and communication science 38.2.), 1592–1604. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Bressem, Jana & Cornelia Müller. 2014b. A repertoire of recurrent gestures of German. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Jana Bressem (eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Handbooks of linguistics and communication science 38.2.), 1575–1591. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Calbris, Genevieve. 2011. Elements of meaning in gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Calbris, Geneviève. 1990. The semiotics of French gestures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Calbris, Geneviève. 2003. From cutting an object to a clear cut analysis. Gesture as the representation of a preconceptual schema linking concrete actions to abstract notions. Gesture 3(1). 19–46.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–37. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. (Cognitive theory of language and culture). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Harrison, Simon. 2009. Grammar, gesture, and cognition: The case of negation in English. Université Michel de Montaigne, Bourdeaux 3 PhD Thesis dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Harrison, Simon. 2010. Evidence for node and scope of negation in coverbal gesture. Gesture 10(1). 29–51.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harrison, Simon. 2014. The organisation of kinesic ensembles associated with negation. Gesture 14(2). 117–140.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kendon, Adam. 1988. How gestures can become like words. In Poyatos Fernando (ed.), Crosscultural perspectives in nonverbal communication, 131–141. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe, Publishers.Google Scholar

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

  • Ladewig, Silva H. 2011. Putting the cyclic gesture on a cognitive basis. Cogni Textes 6.Google Scholar

  • Ladewig, Silva H. 2014. Recurrent gestures. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Jana Bressem (eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (handbooks of linguistics and communication science 38.2.), 1558–1574. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

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

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Cognitive (Construction) grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1). 167–176.Google Scholar

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

  • Mittelberg, Irene. this volume. Multimodal existential constructions in German: Manual actions of giving as experiential substrate for grammatical and gestural patterns.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia. 2010. Wie Gesten bedeuten. Eine kognitiv-linguistische und sequenzanalytische Perspektive. Sprache und Literatur 41(1). 37–68.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia. 2014. Gestures as “deliberate expressive movement”. In Mandana Seyfeddinipur & Marianne Gullberg (eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance, 127–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia. to appear. How recurrent gestures mean: Conventionalized contexts-of-use and embodied motivation. Gesture.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia, Jana Bressem & Silva H. Ladewig 2013. Towards a grammar of gesture: A form-based view. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. (Handbooks of linguistics and communication science 38.1.), 707–733. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Schoonjans, Steven. 2014. Modalpartikeln als multimodale Konstruktionen: Eine korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. KU Leuven PhD dissertation.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, Susanne Günthner & Wolfgang Imo (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V – Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten, 291–308. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Streeck, Jürgen. 2005. Pragmatic aspects of gesture. In Jacob Mey (ed.), International encyclopedia of languages and linguistics, 275–299. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

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

  • Teßendorf, Sedinha. 2014. Pragmatic and metaphoric gestures – combining functional with cognitive approaches in the analysis of the “brushing aside gesture”. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Jana Bressem (eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Handbook of linguistics and communication science 38.2.), Unpublished manuscript vols, 1540–1558. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Teßendorf, Sedinha. 2016. Actions as sources for gestures. In Konstanze Jungbluth & Marta Fernández-Villanueva (eds.), Beyond language boundaries multimodal use in multilingual contexts, 34–54. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter/Mouton.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: 2016-08-30

Accepted: 2016-10-18

Published Online: 2017-06-29


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 3, Issue s1, 20160053, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0053.

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.

[1]
Cornelia Müller
Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, Volume 9
[2]
Pamela Perniss
Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, Volume 9

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in