Element contents
Series: Elements in Construction Grammar
Multimodal Construction Grammar
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 August 2025
Summary
This Element in Construction Grammar addresses one of its hottest topics and asks: is the unimodal conception of Construction Grammar as a model of linguistic knowledge at odds with the usage-based thesis and the multimodality of language use? Are constructions verbal, i.e. unimodal form-meaning pairings, or are they, or at least are some of them, multimodal in nature? And, more fundamentally, how do we know? These questions have been debated quite controversially over the past few years. This Element presents the current state of research within the field, paying special attention to the arguments that are put forward in favour and against the uni-/multimodal nature of constructions and the various case studies that have been conducted. Although significant progress has been made over the years, the debate points towards a need for a diversification of the questions asked, the data studied, and the methods used to analyse these data.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Construction GrammarOnline ISBN: 9781009359856Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 25 September 2025
References
Andrén, M. (2010). Children’s gestures from 18 to 30 months. PhD thesis. Lund University: Centre for Languages and Literature.Google Scholar
Argyle, M. & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text & Talk, 25(1), 7–36.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2021). Turn-allocation and gaze: A multimodal revision of the ‘current-speaker-selects-next’ rule of the turn-taking system of conversation analysis. Discourse Studies, 23(2), 117–140.10.1177/1461445620966922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. & Zima, E. (2021). On word searches, gaze, and co-participation. Gesprächsforschung – Online – Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 22, 390–425. www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2021/ga-auer.pdf.Google Scholar
Auer, P. & Zima, E. (in preparation). Gaze aversion during answers correlates with answer complexity not preference.Google Scholar
Balantani, A. (2022). Non-lexical vocalisations + ‘so_was’ as a multimodal package in establishing joint decisions in music rehearsals. Language & Communication, 87(6), 147–160.10.1016/j.langcom.2022.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). Response tokens in interaction. Prosody, phonetics and a visual aspect of JAJA. Gesprächsforschung – Online – Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 12, 301–370. www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2011/ga-barth-weingarten.pdf.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D., Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Deppermann, A. (2020). Konstruktionsgrammatik und Prosodie: OH in englischer Alltagsinteraktion. In Imo, W. & Lanwer, J. (Eds.). Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 35–73.10.1515/9783110637489-002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, G. (1979). Contextual constraints on the floor-apportionment function of speaker-gaze in dyadic conversations. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 18(4), 391–392.10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00909.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110294002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressem, J. (2013). A linguistic perspective on the notation of form features in gestures. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D. & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.). Body-language-communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.1. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 1079–1098.Google Scholar
Bressem, J. & Ladewig, S. (2011). Rethinking gesture phases: Articulatory features of gestural movement? Semiotica, 184(1/4), 53–91.Google Scholar
Bressem, J. & Müller, C. (2017). The ‘negative-assessment-construction’: A multimodal pattern based on a recurrent gesture? Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bröker, S. & Zima, E. (2022). Disaffiliierende Bewertungen und Haltungsbekundungen in Erzählaktivitäten: Eine multimodale Analyse. Linguistik Online, 118(6), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.118.9087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brône, G. & Zima, E. (2015). Towards a dialogic construction grammar: A corpus-based approach to ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), Internet-Memes S. 457–495.10.1515/cog-2014-0027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Bülow, L., Merten, M.-L. & Johann, M. (2018). Internet-memes als Zugang zu multimodalen Konstruktionen. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 69, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfal-2018-0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2002). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Givon, T. & Malle, B. F. (Eds.). The evolution of language out of pre-language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–134.10.1075/tsl.53.07bybCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabria, V. & De Stefani, E. (2024). ‘E anche’-prefaced other-expansions in multi-person interaction: The syntactic by-product of mutual gaze. In Selting, M. & Barth-Weingarten, D. (Eds.). New perspectives in interactional linguistic research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 162–186.10.1075/slsi.36.06calCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calbris, G. (2011). Elements of meaning in gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/gs.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2024). Can construction grammar be proven wrong? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009343213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2008). Why study metaphor and gesture? In Müller, C. & Cienki, A. (Eds.). Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 5–26.10.1075/gs.3.04cieCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2012). Usage events of spoken language and the symbolic units we (may) abstract from them. In Badio, J. & Kosecki, K. (Eds.). Cognitive processes in language. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 149–158.Google Scholar
Cienki, A. (2013). Image schemas and mimetic schemas in cognitive linguistics and gesture studies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11(2), 417–432.10.1075/rcl.11.2.13cieCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2015). Spoken language usage events. Language & Cognition, 7, 499–514.10.1017/langcog.2015.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2016). Cognitive linguistics, gesture studies, and multimodal communication. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 603–618.10.1515/cog-2016-0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2017). Utterance construction grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of constructions. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. & Müller, C. (2008). Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In Gibbs, R. (Ed.). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 483–501.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, N. & Schilperoord, J. (2024). A multimodal language faculty: A cognitive framework for human communication. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350404861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooperrider, K. (2009). Book review of Enfield, Nicholas J. & Levinson, Stephen C. (Eds.). (2006). Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction. Oxford: Berg. Gesture, 9(3), 373–380.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H. & Zawada, B. (2001) Introduction. In Cuyckens, H. & Zawada, B. (Eds.). Polysemy in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. ix–xxvii.10.1075/cilt.177.02cuyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. & Vandelanotte, L. (2017). Internet memes as multimodal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(3), 565–598. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debras, C. (2021). Multimodal profiles of je (ne) sais pas in spoken French. Journal of Pragmatics, 182(1), 42–62.10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2011). Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktionale Linguistik: Affinitäten, Komplementaritäten und Diskrepanzen. In Lasch, A. & Ziem, A. (Eds.). Konstruktionsgrammatik III: Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze. Tubingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 205–238.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2012). How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences, 34(6), 746–767.10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desagulier, G. (2017). Corpus linguistics and statistics with R. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64572-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (1999). Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 463–489. https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2023). The constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009327848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in language: Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316084410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. & Caldwell-Harris, C. (2015). Frequency and entrenchment. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (Eds.). Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 53–75.10.1515/9783110292022-004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droste, P. & Günthner, S. (2020). ‘Das mAchst du bestimmt AUCH du’: Zum Zusammenspiel grammatischer, prosodischer und sequenzieller Aspekte syntaktisch desintegrierter du-Formate. In Imo, W. & Lanwer, J. (Eds.). Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 75–109.10.1515/9783110637489-003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droste, P. & Günthner, S. (2021). Enacting ‘being with you’: Vocative uses of du (‘you’) in German everyday interaction. Pragmatics, 31(1), 87–113. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19030.dro.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. (2009). The anatomy of meaning: Speech, gesture, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511576737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyaerts, K., Brône, G. & Oben, B. (2017). Multimodality in interaction. In Dancygier, B., (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1535–1565.Google Scholar
Feyaerts, K., Brône, G., Sambre, P., Oben, B., Schoonjans, S. & Zima, E. (2014). Accounting for multimodality in construction grammar. Talk at DGKL 6, Nuremberg-Erlangen, October.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2008). Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In Gibbs, R. (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 462–482.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Nikiforidou, K. (Eds.). (2025). Multimodal communication from a construction grammar perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Universals of discourse structure and second language acquisition. In Rutherford, W. E. (Ed.). Language universals and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–136.10.1075/tsl.5.10givCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., Schroeder, J. L. & Robertson, D. A. (1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory & Cognition, 26, 651–658.10.3758/BF03211385CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. (1998). Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In Tomasello, M. (Ed.). The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 203–219.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 219–224.10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Ch. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 272–302.10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Ch. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Ch. (2003). The power of Schegloff’s work. In Prevignano, L. & Thibault, P. J. (Eds.). Discussing conversation analysis: The work of Emanuel A. Schegloff. New York: John Benjamins, pp. 57–64.10.1075/z.118.04gooCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. & Goodwin, Ch. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62(1–2), 51–75.Google Scholar
Gras, P. & Elvira-García, W. (2021). The role of intonation in construction grammar: On prosodic constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 180, 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In Duranti, A. & Goodwin, Ch (Eds.). Rethinking context: Language as an interpretative phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–252.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2011). Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In Auer, P. & Pfänder, S. (Eds.). Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 156–185.10.1515/9783110229080.156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddington, P. (2006). The organization of gaze and assessments as resources for stance taking. Text & Talk, 26, 281–328.10.1515/TEXT.2006.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B., Mittelberg, I., Uhrig, P. & Turner, M. (2018). There-constructions ‘in the wild’: A quantitative pilot study of multimodal conversational data. 8th International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (DGKL8), Koblenz.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. M. (2009). Grammar, gesture, and cognition: The case of negation in English. Bordeaux: Université Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux 3 dissertation.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S. & Ungerer, T. (2023). Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics 60(3), 599–634. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222672300011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2005). Joint turn construction through language and the body: Notes on embodiment in coordinated participation in situated activities. Semiotica, 156, 21–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.21.Google Scholar
Heath, Ch. (1993). Gesture’s discreet tasks multiple relevancies in visual conduct and in the contextualisation of language. In Auer, P. & Di Luzio, A. (Eds.). The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 101–128.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2021). Ten lectures on diachronic construction grammar. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004446793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinell, J. (2018). The multimodal marking of aspect: The case of five periphrastic auxiliary constructions in North American English. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(4), 773–806.10.1515/cog-2017-0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, S., Foulsham, T. & Kingstone, A. (2015). Speaking and listening with the eyes: Gaze signaling during dyadic interactions. PLOS ONE, 10(8): e0136905. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, T. (2013). Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In Trousdale, G. & Hoffmann, T. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 307–328.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2017). Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holler, J., Kendrick, K. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Processing language in face-to-face conversation: Questions with gestures get faster responses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25(5), 1900–1908.10.3758/s13423-017-1363-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopper, P. (1998). Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, M. (Ed.). The new psychology of language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 155–175.Google Scholar
Imo, W. (2011). Cognitions are not observable – but their consequences are: Mögliche Aposiopese-Konstruktionen in der gesprochenen Alltagssprache. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 12, 265–300.Google Scholar
Imo, W. & Lanwer, J. (Eds.) (2020). Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: De Gryuter.10.1515/9783110637489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. (2013) (Ed.). Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.10.1515/9783110335255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karadöller, D. Z., Sümer, B. & Özyürek, A. (2024). First-language acquisition in a multimodal language framework: Insights from speech, gesture, and sign. First Language, 0, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/01427237241290678.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. & Thompson, S. (2018). Language and bodily resources: ‘Response packages’ in response to polar questions in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 220–238.10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2013). The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(1), 1–21.10.1080/08351813.2013.753710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2020). Multimodal noun phrases. In Ono, T. & Thompson, S. (Eds.). The ‘noun phrase’ across languages: An emergent unit in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 153–176.10.1075/tsl.128.07keeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendon, A. (1980). Gesture and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In Key, M. R. (Ed.). Non-verbal communication and language. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 207–227.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511807572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (2015). Gesture and sign: Utterance uses of visible bodily action. In Allen, K. (Ed.). The Routledge handbook of linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 33–46.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Holler, J. (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 12–32.10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., Holler, J. & Levinson, S. C. (2023). Turn-taking in human face-to-face interaction is multimodal: Gaze direction and manual gestures aid the coordination of turn transitions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378(1875). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, M. (2006). ‘Calm down!’ The role of gaze in the interactional management of hysteria by the police. Discourse Studies, 8(6), 745–770.10.1177/1461445606069328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövesces, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladewig, S. (2011). Putting the cyclic gesture on a cognitive basis. CogniTextes, 6, https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladewig, S. (2020). Integrating gestures: The dimension of multimodality in cognitive grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110668568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laner, B. (2025). Mobile stance-taking in nature: An exploration of gaze patterns during assessments of objects in nature. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.461123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188.10.1515/cogl.12.2.143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Metaphoric gesture and cognitive linguistics. In Cienki, A. & Müller, C. (Eds.). Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 249–251.10.1075/gs.3.14lanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanwer, J. (2017). Apposition: A multimodal construction? The multimodality of linguistic constructions in the light of usage-based theory. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanwer, J. (2020). Appositive Syntax oder appositive Prosodie? In Imo, W. & Lanwer, J. (Eds.). Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 233–281.10.1515/9783110637489-008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasch, A. (2020). Semantically motivated constructions in a semantically motivated constructicon. Talk at Constructing a Constructicon. Trient, May.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2024a). Multimodal constructions revisited: Testing the strength of association between spoken and non-spoken features of Tell me about it. Cognitive Linguistics, 35(3), 407–437.10.1515/cog-2023-0095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2024b). What makes a multimodal construction? Evidence for a prosodic mode in spoken English. Frontiers in Communication, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1338844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. & Pentrel, M. (2023). Multimodal-ish: Prosodic and kinesic aspects ofbounded and free uses of ish. Language and Cognition, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepic, R. & Occhino, C. (2018). A construction morphology approach to sign language analysis. In Booij, G. (Ed.). The construction of words: Studies in morphology, vol. 4. Cham: Springer, pp. 141–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Marandin, J.-M. (2006). Contours as constructions. Constructions. https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masini, F., Combei, C. R. & Cicchirillo, R. (in press). The prosody of list constructions. In Nikiforidou, K. & Fried, M. (Eds.). Multimodal communication from a construction grammar perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 116–151.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are non-verbal? Psychological Review, 92(3), 350–371.10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, C. (2016). Face-to-face communication. In Bruhn Jensen, K., Craig, T. R., Pooley, J. & Rothenbuhler, E. (Eds.). The international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Mittelbeg, I. (2006). Metaphor and metonymy in language and gesture: Discourse evidence for multimodal models of grammar. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Published online, Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest/UMI.Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2017). Multimodal existential constructions in German: Manual actions of giving as experiential substrate for grammatical and gestural patterns. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2019). Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates form, function and schematic patterns in gesture. Frontiers in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2024). Requesting in shop encounters. In Selting, M. & Barth-Weingarten, D. (Eds.). New perspectives in interactional linguistic research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 278–309.10.1075/slsi.36.10monCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2025). Multimodality, conventionality and inheritance in dialogic constructions. In Nikiforidou, K. & Fried, M. (Eds.). Multimodal communication from a construction grammar perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 38–68.10.1075/cal.38.02nikCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. & Fried, M. (Eds.). (2025). Multimodal communication from a construction grammar perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,10.1075/cal.38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ningelgen, J. & Auer, P. (2017). Is there a multimodal construction based on non-deictic so in German? Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. (2010). Prosodic constructions in making complaints. In Barth-Weingarten, D., Reber, E. & Selting, M. (Eds.). Prosody in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 81–104.10.1075/sidag.23.10ogdCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagán-Cánovas, C. & Valenzuela, J. (2017). Timelines and multimodal constructions: Facing new challenges. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0087.Google Scholar
Pagán-Cánovas, C., Valenzuela, J., Alcaraz-Carríon, D., Olzá, I. & Ramscar, M. (2020). Quantifying the speech–gesture relation with massive multimodal datasets: Informativity in time expressions. PloS ONE, 15(6), e0233892. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2016). More than an epistemic hedge: French je sais pas ‘I don’t know’ as a resource for the sequential organization of turns and actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 106, 148–162.10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2019). At the interface of grammar and the body: Chais pas (‘dunno’) as a resource for dealing with lack of recipient response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(4), 1–23.10.1080/08351813.2019.1657276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2022). Multimodal action formats for managing preference: Chais pas ‘dunno’ plus gaze conduct in dispreferred responses to questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 197(1), 81–99.10.1016/j.pragma.2022.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., Polak-Yitzhaki, H., Li, X., Stoenica, I.-M., Havlík, M. & Keevallik, L. (2022). Multimodal assemblies for prefacing a dispreferred response: A cross-linguistic analysis. Frontiers in Communication, 12(2021). www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689275/full.Google Scholar
Perniss, P. (2018). Why we should study multimodal language. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01109.10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Põldvere, N. & Paradis, C. (2020). ‘What and then a little robot brings it to you?’ The reactive what-x construction in spoken dialogue. English Language & Linguistics, 24(2): 307–332.10.1017/S1360674319000091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadat-Tehrani, N. (2010). An intonational construction. Constructions, 5. https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-451.Google Scholar
Sanaz, M. J. (2013). Multimodality and cognitive linguistics. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11(2), 227–235.10.1075/rcl.11.2.01pinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114.10.2307/2786745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Narrative analysis thirty years later. In Bamberg, M. (Ed.). Oral versions of personal experience: Three decades of narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1–4), 97–106.10.1075/jnlh.7.11narCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schembri, A., Kearsy Cormier, K. & Fenlon, J. (2018). Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics, 3(1):89, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.468.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, J. & Cohn, N. (2022). Before: Unimodal linguistics. After: Multimodal linguistics. A parallel architecture account of a multimodal construction. Cognitive Semantics, 8(1), 109–140. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2007). Entrenchment, salience and basic levels. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–138.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2014). Entrenchment, memory and automaticity: The psychology of linguistic knowledge and language learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2013). Constructionist challenges and the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Manuscript retrieved from https://osf.io/v7j3n.Google Scholar
Schoonjans, S. (2017). Multimodal construction grammar issues are construction grammar issues. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonjans, S. (2018). Modalpartikeln als multimodale Konstruktionen: Eine korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110566260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, K. H. & Selby, H. A. (Eds.). Meaning in anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 1–55.Google Scholar
Steen, F. F., Hougaard, A., Joo, J., Olza, I., Pagán Cánovas, C., Pleshakova, A., Ray, S., Uhrig, P., Valenzuela, J., Woźny, J. & Turner, M. (2018). Toward an infrastructure for data-driven multimodal communication research. Linguistics Vanguard, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, St. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–253.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. (1993). Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech, Communication Monographs, 60(4), 275–299.10.1080/03637759309376314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. & Hartge, U. (1992). Previews: Gestures at the transition place. In Auer, P. & Luzio, A. Di (Eds.). The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 135–158.10.1075/pbns.22.10strCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. (2010). Überlegungen zu einem multimodalen Verständnis der gesprochenen Sprache am Beispiel deiktischer Verwendungsweisen des Ausdrucks ‘so’. InLiSt: Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 47, 1–23.Google Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. (2015). Deixis in der face-to-face-Interaktion, Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110307436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. (2020). Mit Blick auf die Geste: Multimodale Verfestigungen in der Interaktion. In Weidner, B., König, K., Wegner, L. & Imo, W. (Eds.). Verfestigungen in der Interaktion: Konstruktionen, sequenzielle Muster, kommunikative Gattungen. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 233–263.Google Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. (2021). Multimodal gestalts and their change over time: Is routinization also grammaticalization? Frontiers in Communication, 6, 662240. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.662240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. & Zima, E. (2025). Introduction: Mobile eye tracking for the study of gaze in social interaction. In Stukenbrock, A. & Zima, E. (Eds.). Mobile eyetracking: New avenues for the study of gaze in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. (2002). Face to face: Towards a sociological theory of interpersonal behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.10.1515/9780804780377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhrig, P. (2021a). Multimodal communication in construction grammar. Talk at Abralin AO Vivo. https://aovivo.abralin.org/en/lives/peter-uhrig-2, last retrieved on 21 November 2024.Google Scholar
Uhrig, P. (2021b). Large-scale multimodal corpus linguistics: The big data turn. Erlangen: Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Habilitation thesis.Google Scholar
Uhrig, P. (2022). Hand gestures with verbs of throwing: Collostructions, style and metaphor. In Hampe, B. & Binanzer, A. (Eds.). Yearbook of the German Association of Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 10. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 99–120.Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009308717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlenzuela, J., Pagán Cánovas, C., Olza, I. & Alcaraz Carrión, D. (2020). Gesturing in the wild: Spontaneous gestures co-occurring with temporal demarcative expressions provide evidence for a flexible mental timeline. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 289–315.10.1075/rcl.00061.valCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2021). Construction grammar, multimodal communication, and design features of language: Preliminaries to a coherent research program. Athens, SLE conference, 30 August–3 September.Google Scholar
Ward, N. G. (2019). The prosodic patterns of English conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316848265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S., Martínez, R. & Siyavoshi, S. (2024). Signed language and cognitive grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ziem, A. (2017). Do we really need a multimodal construction grammar? Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0095.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Zima, E. (2017a). On the multimodality of [all the way from X PREP Y]. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zima, E. (2017b). Multimodal constructional resemblance: The case of English circular motion constructions. In Ruiz de Mendoza, F., Luzondo, A. & Pérez-Sobrino, P. (Eds.). Constructing families of constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 301–337.10.1075/hcp.58.11zimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zima, E. (2020). Gaze and recipient feedback in triadic storytelling activities. Discourse Processes, 57(9), 725–748.10.1080/0163853X.2020.1769428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zima, E. (2023). Gesprächsanalytische und kognitiv-linguistische Studien zur Rolle von Blick und ko-verbaler Gestik in der sozialen Interaktion. Habilitation thesis. University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Zima, E. (2025). Construction grammar and gesture. In Nikiforidou, K. & Fried, M. (Eds.). Cambridge handbook of construction grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 384–404.10.1017/9781009049139.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zima, E., Auer, P. & Rühlemann, C. (2025). Why multimodal interaction research on gaze needs mobile eyetracking. In Zima, E. & Stukenbrock, A. (Eds.). Mobile eyetracking: New avenues for the study of gaze in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 24–66.10.1075/pbns.351.02zimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zima, E. & Bergs, A. (2017). Multimodality and construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016–1006/html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
The PDF of this Element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.