In:Multimodal Communication from a Construction Grammar Perspective
Edited by Kiki Nikiforidou and Mirjam Fried
[Constructional Approaches to Language 38] 2025
► pp. 26–37
Construction Grammar, multimodal communication, and design features of language
Preliminaries to a consistent research program
Published online: 16 January 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.38.01ver
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.38.01ver
Abstract
The issue of the constructional status of a pattern of multimodal communication involves the
necessity to determine the position of the pattern on several distinct dimensions. Does it use the auditory or the
visual channel, or both? To what degree is it entrenched, conventional, or both? Does it exploit depictive or
descriptive techniques of communication, or both? An answer to one of these questions does not determine the answers
in the other dimensions; they correlate only partly. As a result, there can be no single combination of values on the
dimensions such that it determines the constructional status of the pattern (yes or no). But while the correlations
are only partial, particular values on some dimensions are differentially ‘attracted’ to certain values on another one
(e.g. speech seems to be more attracted to conventionality than vision). In this paper, I demonstrate these points and
explore some conceptual and causal differences and connections between these dimensions, for the purpose of enhancing
conceptual clarity and distinguishing terminological from truly empirical issues.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Differences between dimensions of constructions
- 2.1Channels, description, and depiction
- 2.2Entrenchment and conventionality
- 2.3Interim summary
- 3.Connections between dimensions of constructions
- 4.Final remarks
Notes References
References (18)
Dąbrowska, E. (2015). Individual
differences in grammatical knowledge. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook
of Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 650–668). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Enfield, N. J. (2015). A
“Composite Utterances” approach to meaning. In C. Müller, A. J. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Teßendorf (Eds.), Body — language — communication:
An international handbook on multimodality in human
interaction (689–707). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Holler, J., & Levinson, S. C. (2019). Multimodal
language processing in human communication. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 23, 639–652.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations
of language: Brain, meaning, grammar,
evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention.
A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Nu: Wiley)
Schilperoord, J., & Cohn, N. (2022). Before:
Unimodal linguistics, After: Multimodal linguistics. A parallel architecture account of a multimodal
construction. Cognitive
Semantics, 8, 109–140.
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The
dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and
entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schoonjans, S. (2017). Multimodal
Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues. Linguistics
Vanguard, 3(s1).
Sweetser, E. (2009). What
does it mean to compare language and gesture? Modalities and
contrasts. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & S. Ozcaliskan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic
approaches to the psychology of language. Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac
Slobin (pp. 357–366). New York/London: Psychology Press.
(2023). The
origins of perspective taking lie in iconic language use: Unifying theories of signs, conversation, and
narrative perspective. Frontiers in
Communication, 8, 623–662.