Multimodal analysis of quotation in oral narratives

Kashmiri Stec 1 , Mike Huiskes 1 , and Gisela Redeker 1
  • 1 Center for Language & Cognition, University of Groningen

Abstract

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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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/.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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.

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

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search