Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to address some methodological questions arising in the framework of usage-based construction grammar facing the multimodality of language use. These questions will be discussed with respect to different patterns of head nods accompanying different appositional patterns in spoken German.
Acknowledgement
The paper originated in the context of the research project “Interactional grammar: appositions and apposition-like constructions in spoken German between interactional practice and syntactic pattern” (IM 122/2-1) founded by the DFG. For proofreading the text I would like to thank Georgios Coussios and David Hünlich.
Conventions used for multimodal transcription
Temporal structure and alignment
| . .. ... | period of preparation in ms (1 ms, 2 ms, 3 ms etc.) |
| ⁃ ⁃⁃ ⁃⁃⁃ | period of holding in ms (1 ms, 2 ms, 3 ms etc.) |
| , ,, ,,, | period of retraction in ms (1 ms, 2 ms, 3 ms etc.) |
| {} | kine |
| °{} | kine begins before the excerpts beginning |
| ⁃⁃⁃° | holding of kine after ending |
| * | indexes the point of alignment of a posture in the verbal transcription |
Specified coding of head movements
| Motion | Axis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None | Vertical | Horizontal | Sagittal | ||||
| None | ┼ | ||||||
| Rotation | < | > | ∧ | ∨ | \ | / | |
| Translation | ⊥ | ┬ | └ | ┘ | ╨ | ╥ | |
Left symbol: left, upward or backward; right symbol: right, downward or forward (according to axis and motion)
Additional symbols
| ! | heavy | ||
| ? | slightly | ||
| + | intensified | ||
| − | weakened |
References
Acuña Fariña, J. C. 2006. A constructional network in appositive space. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1). 1–37.10.1515/COG.2006.001Search in Google Scholar
Auer, P. 2002. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. InList 33.10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7Search in Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. & N. Chang. 2005. Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 147–190. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/cal.3.08berSearch in Google Scholar
Birdwhistell, R. L. 1970. Kinesics and context. Essays on body motion communication. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.10.9783/9780812201284Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612886Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 49–69. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004Search in Google Scholar
Cienki, A. 2015. Spoken language usage events. Language and Cognition 7(4). 499–514.10.1017/langcog.2015.20Search in Google Scholar
Clark, A. 2011. Supersizing the mind. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1007/s11098-010-9598-9Search in Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining language change. Harlow: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. 2006. Construction grammar – Eine Grammatik für die Interaktion. In A. Deppermann, R. Fiehler & T. Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang zwischen grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen, 43–65. Radolfszell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486531Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 296–322. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110292022-015Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511624582Search in Google Scholar
Freienstein, J. C. 2008. Das erweiterte Appositiv. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/z.74Search in Google Scholar
Green, K. P. 1998. The use of auditory and visual information during phonetic processing: Implications for theories of speech perception. In R. Campbell, D. Barbara & D. Burnham (eds.), Hearing by eye II. Advances in the psychology of speechreading and auditory-visual speech, 3–25. East Sussex: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. & R. Wooffitt. 2010. Conversation analysis, 2nd edn, re. Cambridge: Polity.Search in Google Scholar
Imo, W. 2007. Der Zwang zur Kategorienbildung: Probleme der Anwendung der Construction Grammar bei der Analyse gesprochener Sprache. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion 8. 22–45.Search in Google Scholar
Imo, W. 2014. Appositions in monologue, increments in dialogue? On appositions and apposition-like patterns and their status as constructions. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, 323–353. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110366273.321Search in Google Scholar
Imo, W. 2015. Zwischen Construction Grammar und Interaktionaler Linguistik: Appositionen und appo-sitionsähnliche Konstruktionen. In A. Lasch & A. Ziem (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV, 91–112. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar
Jacomy, M., T. Venturini, S. Heymann & M. Bastian 2014. ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the gephi software. PLoS ONE 9. 6.10.1371/journal.pone.0098679Search in Google Scholar
Jäger, L. 2003. Probleme der linguistischen Gegenstandkonstitution. In A. Linke, H. Ortner & P. R. Portmann-Tselikas (eds.), Sprache und mehr: Ansichten einer Linguistik der sprachlichen Praxis, 67–97. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110911985.67Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1–38.10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1997. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8(1). 1–32.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2001. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 143–188.10.1515/cogl.12.2.143Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2013. Essentials of cognitive grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0005Search in Google Scholar
Lanwer, J. P. 2015. Allegro oder usuell? Zum Status sogenannter “Allegroformen” aus Sicht einer gebrauchsbasierten Linguistik. In M. Elmentaler, M. Hundt & J. E. Schmidt (eds.), Deutsche Dialekte. Konzepte, Probleme, Handlungsfelder, 169–190. Stuttgart: Steiner.Search in Google Scholar
Lanwer, J. P. In prep. Grammatikalität und Rekurrenz. Zur Rolle statistischer Verfahren im Rahmen einer “rekonstruktiven” Linguistik. In G. Albert & S. Diao-Klaeger (eds.), Mündlicher Sprachgebrauch zwischen Normorientierung und pragmatischen Spielräumen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar
Lanwer, J. P. Accepted. Koreferenz: eine Frage des common ground? Überlegungen zum Funktionsspektrum weiter Appositionen an der Schnittstelle von Interaktion und Kognition. Deutsche Sprache.Search in Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M. 1985. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21. 1–36.10.1016/0010-0277(85)90021-6Search in Google Scholar
Löbel, E. 1993. Zur Distribution und Abgrenzung von enger Apposition und Attribut. In M. Vuillaume, J.-F. Marillier & I. Behr (eds.), Studien zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalgruppe, 145–166. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Macdonald, J. & H. McGurk 1978. Visual influences on speech perception processes. Perception & Psychophysics 24(3). 253–257.10.3758/BF03206096Search in Google Scholar
McCLave, E. Z. 2000. Linguistic functions of head movements in the context of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 32.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00079-XSearch in Google Scholar
Meyer, C. F. 1992. Apposition in contemporary English. Studies in English language. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597824Search in Google Scholar
Molitor, F. 1979. Zur Apposition im heutigen Deutsch. Eine Vorstudie. Köln: Universität.Search in Google Scholar
Munhall, K. G., J. A. Jones, D. E. Callan, T. Kuratate & E. Vatikiotis-Bateson 2004. Visual prosody and speech intelligibility. Psychological Science 15(2). 133–137.10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502010.xSearch in Google Scholar
Paul, H. 1995 [1980]. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110929461Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. 2001. Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In P. Hopper & J. L. Bybee (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–158. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.08pieSearch in Google Scholar
Prieto, P., C. Puglesi, J. Borräs-Comes, E. Arroyo & J. Blat 2015. Exploring the contribution of prosody and gesture to the perception of focus using an animated agent. Journal of Phonetics 49. 41–54.10.1016/j.wocn.2014.10.005Search in Google Scholar
Schindler, W. 1990. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik appositionsverdächtiger Einheiten im Deutschen. Linguistische Arbeiten.Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783111671956Search in Google Scholar
Stetter, C. 2002. Sprechen und Sprache: Überlegungen zu einem Grundlagenproblem der theoretischen Linguistik. In S. Krämer & E. König (eds.), In Gibt es eine Sprache hinter dem Sprechen? Frankfurt. 19–44. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Search in Google Scholar
Selting, M., et al. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion 10. 353–402.Search in Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Tummers, J., K. Heylen & D. Geeraerst. 2005. Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Lingustic Theory 1(2). 225–261.10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225Search in Google Scholar
Zifonun, G., L. Hoffmann & B. Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110872163Search in Google Scholar
Zima, E. 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.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
