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

Semiotica

Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotique

Editor-in-Chief: Danesi, Marcel


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.509

CiteScore 2018: 0.23

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.232
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.478

Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca: Classe A

Online
ISSN
1613-3692
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 2019, Issue 228

Issues

Peirce’s universal categories: On their potential for gesture theory and multimodal analysis

Irene Mittelberg
Published Online: 2019-03-28 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0090

Abstract

This paper presents an account of how Peirce’s Universal Categories (UCs) of perception and experience may, as heuristic principles, inform gesture theory and multimodal analysis. Peirce’s UCs – Firstness (possibility), Secondness (actuality), and Thirdness (law, habit) – constitute the core of his phenomenology and thus also the foundation of his triadic semiotics. I argue that compared to the basic sign-object relations icon, index, symbol mainly used in previous gesture research, the more fundamental UCs allow one to discern additional facets of how coverbal gestures act as signs. This notably pertains to the phenomenology, multidimensionality, and multifunctionality of gesture. The guiding assumption is that compared to Thirdness-laden linguistic symbols constituting written, spoken or signed discourses, gestures may exhibit the UCs to more strongly varying degrees and in different, modality-specific ways. The multimodal analyses discussed in the paper show how Firstness tends to draw attention to the articulatory qualities of gestural signs, including aesthetic and affective strata, Secondness to their experiential grounding and contextualized meaning, and Thirdness to embodied habits of perceiving, feeling, (inter-)acting, thinking, and communicating with others. I further suggest that particularly through interacting with embodied image schemata and force dynamics, such habits may give rise to flexible regularities and schematicity in gesture.

Keywords: gesture; Peirce; universal categories; image schemata; embodiment; multimodality

References

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

  • Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays, Michael Holquist (ed.). Austin & London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

  • Bavelas, Janet, Nicole Chovil, Jan L. Coates & Lori Roe. 1995. Gestures specialized for dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21. 394–405.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1980. Le sens pratique [The logic of practice]. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar

  • Bressem, Jana. 2013. A linguistic perspective on the notation of form features in gestures. 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, 1079–1098. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bressem, Jana. 2014. Repetitions in 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, 1037–1958. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bressem, Jana & Cornelia Müller. 2014. A repertoire of German recurrent gestures with pragmatic functions. 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, 1575–1591. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Calbris, Geneviève. 2011. Elements of meaning in gesture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Cienki, Alan. 2013a. Cognitive linguistics: Spoken language and gesture as expressions of conceptualization. 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, 182–201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Cienki, Alan. 2013b. Mimetic schemas and image schemas in cognitive linguistics and gesture studies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(2). 417–432.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Colapietro, Vincent. 2001. A lantern for the feet of inquirers: The heuristic function of the Peircean categories. Semiotica 136(1/4). 201–216.Google Scholar

  • Colapietro, Vincent. 2008. Peirce’s categories and sign studies. In Susan Petrilli (ed.), Approaches to communication: Trends in global communication studies, 43–58. Madison, WI: Atwood.Google Scholar

  • Corrington, Robert. 1993. An introduction to C. S. Peirce: Philosopher, semiotician, and ecstatic naturalist. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

  • Danaher, David. 1998. Peirce’s semiotic and cognitive metaphor theory. Semiotica 119(1/2). 171–207.Google Scholar

  • Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser. 2014. Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Deacon, Terrence. 1997. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York & London: Norton.Google Scholar

  • Enfield, Nicolas. 2009. The anatomy of meaning. Speech, gestures, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Enfield, Nicolas. 2011. Elements of formulation. In Jürgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin & Curtis LeBaron (eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world, 59–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Farias, Priscila & João Queiroz. 2006. Images, diagrams, and metaphors: Hypoicons in the context of Peirce’s sixty-six-fold classification of signs. Semiotica 162(1/4). 287–307.Google Scholar

  • Farias, Priscila & João Queiroz. 2017. Visualizing triadic relations: Diagrams for Charles S. Peirce’s classifications of signs. Information Design Journal 23(2). 127–147.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar

  • Fricke, Ellen. 2007. Origo, Geste und Raum – Lokaldeixis im Deutschen [Origo, gesture and space – spatial deixis in German]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Fricke, Ellen. 2012. Grammatik multimodal: Wie Wörter und Gesten zusammenwirken [Grammar multimodal: How words and gestures intertwine]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Gallagher, Shaun. 2005. How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gibbs, Raymond W. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Goodwin, Charles. 2011. Contextures of action. In Jürgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin & Curtis LeBaron (eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and the body in the material world, 182–193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Halton, Eugene. 2004. The living gesture and the signifying moment. Symbolic Interaction 27(1). 89–113.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haviland, John. 2000. Pointing, gesture spaces, and mental maps. In David McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 13–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jäger, Ludwig & Erika Linz (eds.). 2004. Medialität und Mentalität: Theoretische und empirische Studien zum Verhältnis von Sprache, Subjektivität und Kognition [Mediality and mind: Theoretical and empirical studies on the relation of language, subjectivity, and cognition]. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Jakobson, Roman. 1987 [1960]. Linguistics and poetics. In Krystyna Pomorska & Stephen Rudy (eds.), Roman Jakobson, language in literature, 62–94. Cambridge & London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jakobson, Roman. 1990 [1966]. ​Quest for the essence of language. In Linda R. Waugh & Monique Monville-Burston (eds.), Roman Jakobson: On language, 407–421. Cambridge & London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Johnson, Mark. 2007. The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kappelhoff, Hermann & Cornelia Müller. 2011. Embodied meaning construction. Multimodal metaphor and expressive movement in speech, gesture, and in feature film. Metaphor and the Social Word 1(2). 121–153.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Kita, Sotaro (ed.). 2003. Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Klee, Paul. 1986. Pedagogical sketchbook. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar

  • Koch, Sabine C., Stefanie Glawe & Daniel V. Holt. 2011. Up and down, front and back: Movement and meaning in the vertical and sagittal axes. Social Psychology 42(3). 215–224.Google Scholar

  • Kockelman, Paul. 2005. The semiotic stance. Semiotica 157(1/4). 233–304.Google Scholar

  • Krois, John M., Mats Rosengren, Angela Steidele & Dirk Westerkamp (eds.). 2007. Embodiment in cognition and culture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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, 1558–1574. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

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

  • Levin, Kasper. 2016. Aesthetic movements of embodied minds: Between Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze. Continental Philosophy Review 49(2). 181–202.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Liszka, James J. 1996. A general introduction to the semiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1962. Phenomenology of perception. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2006. Metaphor and metonymy in language and gesture: Discourse evidence for multimodal models of grammar. Ann Arbor, MI: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2008. Peircean semiotics meets conceptual metaphor: Iconic modes in gestural representations of grammar. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and gesture, 115–154. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2010a. Interne und externe Metonymie: Jakobsonsche Kontiguitätsbeziehungen in redebegleitenden Gesten [Internal and external metonymy: Jakobsonian contiguity relations in co-speech gestures]. Sprache und Literatur 41(1). 112–143.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2010b. Geometric and image-schematic patterns in gesture space. In Vyvyan Evans & Paul Chilton (eds.), Language, cognition, and space: The state of the art and new directions, 351–385. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2011. Focus on form: Reflections on the (neuro-) aesthetics of abstraction in painting and gesture. In Karin Herrmann (ed.), Neuroästhetik: Perspektiven auf ein interdisziplinäres Forschungsgebiet, 110–120. Kassel: Kassel University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2013a. The exbodied mind: Cognitive-semiotic principles as motivating forces in gesture. 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, 750–779. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2013b. Balancing acts: Image schemas and force dynamics as experiential essence in pictures by Paul Klee and their gestural enactments. In Mike Borkent, Barbara Dancygier & Jennifer Hinnell (eds.), Language and the creative mind, 325–346. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2017a. Experiencing and construing spatial artifacts from within: Simulated artifact immersion as a multimodal viewpoint strategy. Cognitive Linguistics 28(3). 381–415.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2017b. Embodied frames and scenes: Body-based metonymy and pragmatic inferencing in gesture. Gesture 16(2). 203–244.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2018. Gestures as image schemas and force gestalts: A dynamic-systems approach augmented with motion-capture data analyses. Cognitive Semiotics 11(1). DOI: 10.1515/cogsem-2018-0002Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene. 2019. Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates forms, functions, and schematic patterns in gesture. Research topic “Visual Language,” Frontiers in Psychology.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene, Thomas H. Schmitz & Hannah Groninger. 2017. Operative manufacts: Gestures as embodied sketches in the early stages of the design process. In Sabine Ammon & Remei Capdevila-Werning (eds.), The active image: Architecture and engineering in the age of modeling, 99–131. Berlin & New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene & Daniel Schüller. 2016. Kulturwissenschaftliche Orientierung in der Gestenforschung [Taking a cultural studies orientation in gesture research]. In Ludwig Jäger, Werner Holly, Peter Krapp & Samuel Weber (eds.), Language – Culture – Communication: An international handbook of linguistics as cultural study, 871–884. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene & Linda R. Waugh. 2009. Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. In Charles Forceville & Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (eds.), Multimodal metaphor, 329–356. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Mittelberg, Irene & Linda R. Waugh. 2014. Gestures and metonymy. 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, 1747–1766. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia. 1998. Redebegleitende Gesten. Kulturgeschichte – Theorie – Sprachvergleich [Co-speech gestures: Cultural history – theory – cross-linguistic insights]. Berlin: Berlin Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia. 2010. Wie Gesten bedeuten. Eine kognitiv-linguistische und sequenzanalytische Perspektive [How gestures mean: A cognitive linguistic and sequence-analytical perspective]. Sprache und Literatur 41(1). 37–68.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia. 2017. How recurrent gestures mean: Conventionalized contexts of use and embodied motivation. Gesture 16(2). 277–304.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Jana Bressem (eds.). 2014. Body-language-communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, Vol. 2. Berlin & Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Tessendorf (eds.). 2013. Body-language-communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Nöth, Winfried. 2016. Habits, habit of change, and the habit of habit change according to Peirce. In Donna West & Myrdene Anderson (eds.), Consensus on Peirce’s concept of habit, 35–63. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Núñez, Rafael & Eve Sweetser. 2006. With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science 30. 401–450.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oehler, Klaus. 1987. An outline of Peirce’s semiotics. In Martin Krampen, Klaus Oehler, Roland Posner, Thomas A. Sebeok & Thure von Uexküll (eds.), Classics of semiotics, 1–21. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

  • Pape, Helmut. 1990. Charles S. Peirce on objects of thought and representation. Noûs 24(3). 375–395.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pape, Helmut. 2015. Charles S. Peirce zur Einführung, 2nd. Hamburg: Junius.Google Scholar

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

  • Peirce, Charles & Lady Victoria Welby. 1977. Semiotic and significs, Charles S. Hardwick (ed.). Bloomington: Indianapolis University Press. [Reference to this work will be designated SS followed by page number.].Google Scholar

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, Vol. 8, C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.].Google Scholar

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1992. Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, Vol. 1 (1867–1893), N. Houser & C. Kloesel (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 1 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 1.].Google Scholar

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1998. Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, Vol. 2 (1893–1913), Peirce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 2 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 2.].Google Scholar

  • Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1955. Philosophical writings of Peirce, Justus Buchler (ed.). New York: Dover.Google Scholar

  • Potter, Vincent. 1967. Charles S. Peirce. On norms & ideals. Worcester, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar

  • Rekittke, Linn-Marlen, Irene Mittelberg & Dhana Wolf. 2015. How sound moves the body: Felt qualities of experience in gestural enactments of film sound. In Proceedings of the 3rd Gesture and Speech in Interaction (GESPIN) Conference, Nantes.Google Scholar

  • Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1986. Cours de linguistique générale de Ferndinand de Saussure, Charles Bally, Albert Sechehaye & Tuillo De Mauro (eds.). Paris: Payot.Google Scholar

  • Schüller, Daniel & Irene Mittelberg. 2016. Diagramme von Gesten. Eine zeichentheoretische Analyse digitaler Bewegungsspuren [Diagrams of gestures: A semiotic analysis of digital motion traces]. Zeitschrift Für Semiotik 38(3–4). 3–32.Google Scholar

  • Shapiro, Michael. 1983. The sense of grammar: Language as semeiotic. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sonesson, Göran. 2007. The extensions of man revisited: From primary to tertiary embodiment. In John M. Krois, Mats Rosengren, Angela Steidele & Dirk Westerkamp (eds.), Embodiment in cognition and culture, 27–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Sonesson, Göran. 2013. The natural history of branching: Approaches to the phenomenology of firstness, secondness, and thirdness. Signs and Society 1(2). 297–325.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sonesson, Göran. 2016. Thirdness as the observer observed: From habit to law by way of habitus. In Donna West & Myrdene Anderson (eds.), Consensus on Peirce’s concept of habit, 283–296. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2007. Diagrammatology: An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2014. Natural propositions: The actuality of Peirce’s doctrine of dicisigns. Boston: Docent Press.Google Scholar

  • Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2016. Dicisigns and habits: Implicit propositions and habit-taking in Peirce’s pragmatism. In Donna West & Myrdene Anderson (eds.), Consensus on Peirce’s concept of habit, 241–262. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

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

  • Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin & Curtis LeBaron (eds.). 2011. Embodied interaction: Language and the body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sweetser, Eve. 2007. Looking at space to study mental spaces: Co-speech gesture as a crucial data source in cognitive linguistics. In Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson & Michael Spivey (eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics, 201–224. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Sweetser, Eve. 2012. Introduction: Viewpoint and perspective in language and gesture, from the ground down. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve E. Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 1–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12(1). 49–100.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vygotsky, Lev. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Waugh, Linda R. 1976. Roman Jakobson’s science of language. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar

  • Waugh, Linda R. 1985. The poetic function and the nature of language. Poetics Today 2. 57–82.Google Scholar

  • West, Donna E. & Myrdene Anderson (eds.). 2016. Consensus on Peirce’s concept of habit: Before and beyond consciousness. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Wolf, Dhana, Irene Mittelberg, Linn-Marlen Rekittke, Saurabh Bhavsar, Mikhail Zvyagintsev, Annina Haeck, Fengyu Cong, Martin Klasen & Mathiak Klaus. 2018. Interpretation of social interactions: Functional imaging of cognitive-semiotic categories during naturalistic viewing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00296Google Scholar

  • Wolf, Dhana, Linn-Marlen Rekittke, Irene Mittelberg, Martin Klasen & Klaus Mathiak. 2017. Perceived conventionality in co-speech gestures involves the fronto-temporal language network. Frontiers of Human Neuroscience. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00573Google Scholar

  • Zima, Elisabeth & Alexander Bergs (eds.). 2017. Toward a multimodal construction grammar. Special issue. Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1).Google Scholar

  • Zlatev, Jordan. 2005. What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In Beate Hampe (ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, 313–342. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Zlatev, Jordan. 2014. Image schemas, mimetic schemas, and children’s gestures. Cognitive Semiotics 7(1). 3–29.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-03-28

Published in Print: 2019-05-07


Citation Information: Semiotica, Volume 2019, Issue 228, Pages 193–222, ISSN (Online) 1613-3692, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0090.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in