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

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Multimodal analysis of quotation in oral narratives

Kashmiri Stec / Mike Huiskes / Gisela Redeker
Published Online: 2015-07-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0018


We investigate direct speech quotation in informal oral narratives by analyzing the contribution of bodily articulators (character viewpoint gestures, character facial expression, character intonation, and the meaningful use of gaze) in three quote environments, or quote sequences – single quotes, quoted monologues and quoted dialogues – and in initial vs. non-initial position within those sequences. Our analysis draws on findings from the linguistic and multimodal realization of quotation, where multiple articulators are often observed to be co-produced with single direct speech quotes (e.g. Thompson & Suzuki 2014), especially on the so-called left boundary of the quote (Sidnell 2006). We use logistic regression to model multimodal quote production across and within quote sequences, and find unique sets of multimodal articulators accompanying each quote sequence type. We do not, however, find unique sets of multimodal articulators which distinguish initial from non-initial utterances; utterance position is instead predicted by type of quote and presence of a quoting predicate. Our findings add to the growing body of research on multimodal quotation, and suggest that the multimodal production of quotation is more sensitive to the number of characters and utterances which are quoted than to the difference between introducing and maintaining a quoted characters’ perspective.

Keywords: quotation; multimodality; viewpoint


  • Akaike, Hirotugu. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, pp. 716–723. Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. Harald, Douglas J. Davidson, & Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59 (4), pp. 390–412. Google Scholar

  • Bakhtin, Micheal M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Google Scholar

  • Banfield, Ann. 1982. Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Routledge. Google Scholar

  • Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68 (3), pp. 255-278. Google Scholar

  • Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steven Walker. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. Retrieved from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. Google Scholar

  • Berko-Gleason, Jean, Harold Goodglass, Loraine Obler, Eugene Green, Mary R. Hyde, & Sandra Weintraub. 1980. Narrative strategies of aphasic and normal-speaking subjects. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 23(2), pp. 370-382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2013. Quotatives: new trends and sociolinguistic implications. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar

  • Buchstaller, Isabelle, & Alexandra D’Arcy. 2009. Localized globalization: A multi‐local, multivariate investigation of quotative be like. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(3), pp. 291-331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chovil, Nicole. 1991. Discourse‐oriented facial displays in conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 25 (1-4), pp. 163-194. Google Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H., & Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66 (4), pp. 764-805. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H., and Mija M. Van Der Wege. 2001. Imagination in discourse. In Deborah Shriffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (Eds.),The handbook of discourse analysis, pp. 772-786. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Google Scholar

  • Cormier, Kearsy, David Quinto-Pozos, Zed Sevcikova, & Adam Schembri. 2012. Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language and Communication, 32(4), pp. 329-48. Google Scholar

  • Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith, & Martine Zwets. 2013. Framing constructed action in British Sign Language narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, pp. 119-139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1999. Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, pp. 11-34. Google Scholar

  • Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2007. Assessing and accounting. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (Eds.), Reporting Talk. Reported Speech in Interaction, pp.81-119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

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

  • Earis, Helen & Kearsy Cormier. 2013. Point of view in British Sign Language and spoken English narrative discourse: the example of “The Tortoise and the Hare”. Language and Cognition, 5(1), pp. 313-343. Google Scholar

  • Eerland, Anita, Jan A. A. Engelen, & Rolf A. Zwaan. 2013. The influence of direct and indirect speech on mental representations. PLoS One, 8, e65480. Google Scholar

  • Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. SIGNUM-Press. Google Scholar

  • Fox, Barbara A., & Jessica Robles. 2010. It’s like mmm: Enactments with it’s like. Discourse Studies, 12, pp. 715-738. Google Scholar

  • Gnisci, Augusto, Fridanna Maricchiolo, & Marino Bonaiuto. 2014. Reliability and validity of coding systems for bodily forms of communication. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body Language Communication, pp. 879-892. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar

  • Goodwin, Charles. 2007. Interactive footing. In Elisabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (Eds.). Reporting Talk. Reported Speech in Interaction, pp.16-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

  • Groenewold, Rimke, Roelien Bastiaanse, Lynsey Nickels & Mike Huiskes. 2014. Perceived liveliness and speech comprehensibility in aphasia: the effects of direct speech in auditory narratives. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49 (4), pp. 486-497. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guerini, Federica. 2015. Being a former Second World War partisan: Reported speech and the expression of local identity. Open Linguistics, 1(1), pp. 191-210. Google Scholar

  • Günthner, Susanne. 1999. Polyphony and the ‘layering of voices’ in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(5), pp. 685-708. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harrell, Frank E., Jr. 2014. Hmisc package version 3.14-6. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Hmisc/index.html Google Scholar

  • Hengst, Julie A., Simone R. Frame, Tiffany Neuman-Stritzel, & Rachel Gannaway. 2005. Using others’ words: Conversational uses of reported speech by individuals with aphasia and their communicative partners. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 48, pp. 137-156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holler, Judith, & Katie Wilkin. 2009. Communicating common ground: How mutually shared knowledge influences speech and gesture in a narrative task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(2), pp. 267-289. Google Scholar

  • Janzen, Terry. 2012. Two ways of conceptualizing space. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, pp.156-175. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

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

  • Labov, William. 1972. Language in the city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Google Scholar

  • Lehrer, Adrienne. 1989. Remembering and representing prose: Quoted speech as a data source. Discourse Processes, 12(1), pp. 105–125. Google Scholar

  • Levy, Elena T., & David McNeill. 1992. Speech, gesture, and discourse. Discourse Processes, 15(3), 277-301. Google Scholar

  • Li, Charles. N. 1986. Direct and Indirect Speech: a functional study. In Florian Coulmas (Ed.). Direct and Indirect Speech, pp.29-45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar

  • Liddell, Scott. K., & Melanie Metzger. 1998. Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), pp. 657-697. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mayes, Patricia. 1990. Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language, 14, pp. 325–363. Google Scholar

  • McClave, Evelyn Z. 2000. Linguistic functions of head movements in the context of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(7), pp. 855-878. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Metzger, Melanie 1995. Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In Ceil Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, pp.255-271. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar

  • Özyürek, Asli. 2002. Do speakers design their cospeech gestures for their addressees? The effects of addressee location on representational gestures. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(4), pp. 688-704. Google Scholar

  • Padden, Carol A. 1986. Verbs and role shifting in American Sign Language. In Carol Padden (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching Sign, pp.44-57. Silver Spring, MD: NAD. Google Scholar

  • Park, Yujong. 2009. Interaction between grammar and multimodal resources: quoting different characters in Korean multiparty conversation. Discourse Studies, 11(1), pp. 79-104. Google Scholar

  • Parrill, Fey. 2010. The hands are part of the package: Gesture, common ground, and information packaging. In John Newman & Sally Rice (Eds.), Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research, pp. 285-302. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google 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, pp.97-112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

  • Pascual, Esther. 2014. Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar

  • Perniss, Pamela, & Asli Özyürek. 2015. Visible cohesion: A comparison of reference tracking in sign, speech, and co-speech gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), pp. 36-60. Google Scholar

  • Perniss, Pamela, Asli Özyürek, & Gary Morgan. 2015. The influence of the visual modality on language structure and conventionalization. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 2-11. Google Scholar

  • R Core Team. 2014. R: A Language And Environment For Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/. Google Scholar

  • Redeker, Gisela. 1991. Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29(6), pp. 1139-1172. Google Scholar

  • Sakita, Tomoko I. 2002. Reporting Discourse, Tense, and Cognition. Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar

  • Sams, Jessie. 2010. Quoting the unspoken: An analysis of quotations in spoken discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), pp. 3147-3160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shih, Stephanie, Jason Grafmiller, Richard Futrell, & Joan Bresnan. 2015. Rhythm’s role in genitive construction choice in spoken English. In Ralf Vogel & Ruben Vijver (Eds.), Rhythm in cognition and grammar, pp. 207-234. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar

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

  • Simmons, Katie, & Amanda LeCouteur. 2011. ‘Hypothetical active-voicing’: Therapists ‘modelling’ of clients’ future conversations in CBT interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), pp. 3177-3192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Stec, Kashmiri, Mike Huiskes, Alan Cienki, & Gisela Redeker. (2015). Annotating bodily indicators of perspective shifts in conversational narratives. Manuscript in preparation. Google Scholar

  • Stec, Kashmiri, Mike Huiskes, & Martijn Wieling. (Under review). Multimodal character viewpoint in quoted dialogue sequences Google Scholar

  • Stelma, Juurd H., & Lynne J. Cameron. 2007. Intonation units in spoken interaction: Developing transcription skills. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 27(3), pp. 361-393. Google Scholar

  • Streeck, Jurgen, & Mark L. Knapp. 1992. The interaction of visual and verbal features in human communication. In Fernando Potayos (Ed.), Advances in non-verbal communication: Sociocultural, clinical, esthetic and literary perspectives, pp.3-23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar

  • Sweetser, Eve, & Kashmiri Stec. (In press). Maintaining multiple viewpoints with gaze. Google Scholar

  • Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

  • Thompson, Sandra A., & Ryoko Suzuki. 2014. Reenactments in conversation: Gaze and recipiency. Discourse Studies, 16(6), pp. 1-31. Google Scholar

  • Turner, Mark. 1998. The literary mind: The origins of thought and language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

  • Uebersax, John S. 1987. Diversity of decision-making models and the measurement of interrater agreement. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), pp. 140-146. Google Scholar

  • Vigliocco, Gabriella, Pamela Perniss, & David Vinson. 2014. Language as a multimodal phenomenon: Implications for language learning, processing and evolution. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society B, 369 (20130292). DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0292 Google Scholar

  • Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann, & Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: a Professional Framework for Multimodality Research. In: Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Retrieved from http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:60436:2/component/escidoc:60437/LREC%202006_Elan_Wittenburg.pdf Google Scholar

  • Yao, Bo, Pascal Belin, & Christoph Scheepers. 2012. Brain “talks over” boring quotes: Top-down activation of voice-selective areas while listening to monotonous direct speech quotations. NeuroImage, 60(3), pp. 1832–1842. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zunshine, Lisa. 2006. Why we read fiction: Theory of mind and the novel. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2014-12-21

Accepted: 2015-06-23

Published Online: 2015-07-30

Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 1, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0018.

Export Citation

© 2015 Kashmiri Stec et al.. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

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.

Stef Spronck
Journal of Pragmatics, 2017, Volume 114, Page 104
Kashmiri Stec, Mike Huiskes, and Gisela Redeker
Journal of Pragmatics, 2016, Volume 104, Page 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in