Cover not available

Article published In: The Quality of Quantity, the Quantity of Quality
Edited by Steven Schoonjans
[Nota Bene 2:1] 2025
► pp. 200–225

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Frequency issues in multimodal Construction Grammar revisited

ORCiD logo with link | Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt | KU Leuven
 | Universität Innsbruck
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with KU Leuven.

Published online: 26 September 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00028.sch
Abstract
After more than a decade of constructionist research on multimodal phenomena, it is still not clear if and how para- and non-verbal layers should be integrated in Construction Grammar. One major issue is the frequency of co-occurrence of the different modes of expression: even though it is increasingly accepted in Construction Grammar that frequency is hard to operationalize as a criterion for construction status, especially opponents of multimodal approaches use low co-occurrence rates as an argument against the idea of a multimodal construction. But proponents of multimodal Construction Grammar who do not see frequency as decisive also tend to reduce frequency to mere numbers, without paying sufficient attention to all the factors that may influence frequency values. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the problem and to show that it is even more important in multimodal than in unimodal Construction Grammar to interpret frequency rates in the context of the data that are used for the analysis, focusing especially on external factors that influence gesturing and on the issue of the appropriate degree of abstraction.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Frequency of multimodal patterns
  • 3.The role of frequency in multimodal construction grammar
    • 3.1Influence of external factors
    • 3.2Optionally multimodal constructions?
    • 3.3Level of abstractness
      • 3.3.1One verbal form, several functions, several constructions
      • 3.3.2More abstract constructions
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (81)
References
Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert & Arne Zeschel. 2010. Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5,1. 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Birkner, Karin. 2008. Relativ(satz)konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Syntaktische, prosodische, semantische und pragmatische Aspekte. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C., Jaakko Leino & Benjamin Lyngfelt. 2024. Constructionist views on Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 16,2. 169–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bücker, Jörg. 2012. Sprachhandeln und Sprachwissen. Grammatische Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von Interaktion und Kognition. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions 11. 1–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2024. Can Construction Grammar Be Proven Wrong? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan. 2017. Utterance Construction Grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of constructions. Linguistics Vanguard 3,s1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohn, Neil & Joost Schilperoord. 2024. A Multimodal Language Faculty. A cognitive framework for human communication. London: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2006. Construction Grammar — Eine Grammatik für die Interaktion? In Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion, 43–65. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktionale Linguistik. Affinitäten, Komplementaritäten und Diskrepanzen. In Alexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze, 205–238. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar. 2019. Frequency in Language. Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang Ulrich, Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang Ullrich Wurzel. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Droste, Pepe & Susanne Günthner. 2020. “das mAchst du bestimmt AUCH du;”: Zum Zusammenspiel syntaktischer, prosodischer und sequenzieller Aspekte syntaktisch desintegrierter du-Formate. In Wolfgang Imo & Jens Philipp Lanwer (eds.), Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik, 75–109. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing. A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24,2. 143–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Construction Grammar and second language acquisition. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 365–378. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fricke, Ellen. 2012. Grammatik multimodal: Wie Wörter und Gesten zusammenwirken. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 2006. Constructions at Work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Explain Me This. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Variationist Analysis. Variability due to random effects and autocorrelation. In Paul Baker & Jesse A. Egbert (eds.), Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus Linguistic Research, 108–123. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. On, or against?, (just) frequency. In Hans C. Boas, (ed.), Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and teaching (with) constructions, 47–71. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne & Wolfgang Imo (eds.). 2006. Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harrison, Simon Mark. 2009. Grammar, gesture, and cognition. The case of negation in English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux 3.
Hilpert, Martin. 2021. Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2025. Frequency. Psychological and methodological considerations. In Mirjam Fried & Kiki Nikiforidou (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, 149–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017. Multimodal constructs — multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard 3,s1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Multimodal Construction Grammar: From multimodal constructs to multimodal constructions. In Wen Xu & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 78–92. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2007a. Construction Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung. Konstruktionen mit zehn matrixsatzfähigen Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007b. Der Zwang zur Kategorienbildung: Probleme der Anwendung der Construction Grammar bei der Analyse gesprochener Sprache. Gesprächsforschung 81. 22–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang & Jens Philipp Lanwer (eds.). 2020. Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Gesture. Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuryu, Daiya. 2025. Crossmodal collostructional analysis of English [ADV and ADV] constructions: Multimodal constructions or crossmodal collostructions? Language and Cognition 17,e39. 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladewig, Silva. 2014. Recurrent gestures. In Cornelia Müller et al. (eds.): Body — Language — Communication: An international handbook on Multimodality in human interaction, Volume 2, 1558–1574. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald Wayne. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12,2. 143–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lanwer, Jens Philipp. 2018. Grammatikalität und Rekurrenz. Zur Rolle statistischer Verfahren im Rahmen einer rekonstruktiven Linguistik. In Georg Albert & Sabine Diao-Klaeger (eds.), Mündlicher Sprachgebrauch. Zwischen Normorientierung und pragmatischen Spielräumen, 231–253. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Claudia. 2024. What makes a multimodal construction? Evidence for a prosodic mode in spoken English. Frontiers in Communication 91,1338844. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2025. Towards a functional perspective on multimodal constructions: Evidence from requesting and stance-related Tell me about it. In Kiki Nikiforidou & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Multimodal Communication from a Construction Grammar Perspective, 220–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2019. In defense of frequency generalizations and usage-based linguistics. An answer to Frederick Newmeyer’s ‘Conversational corpora: when big is beautiful’. CogniTextes 191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Louhema, Karoliina, Jordan Zlatev, Maria Graziano & Joost van de Weijer. 2019. Translating from monosemiotic to polysemiotic narratives: A study of Finnish speech and gestures. Sign Systems Studies 47,3–4. 480–525.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca, Claudia Roberta Combei & Roberta Cicchirillo. 2025. The prosody of list constructions. In Kiki Nikiforidou & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Multimodal Communication from a Construction Grammar Perspective, 116–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meer, Dorothee. 2012. ‚dAs is ja völliger BLÖDsinn;‘ — Konstruktionen der gesprochenen Sprache mit der Abtönungspartikel ja. In Bjorn Rothstein (ed.), Nicht-flektierende Wortarten, 89–116. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ningelgen, Jana & Peter Auer. 2017. Is there a multimodal construction based on non-deictic so in German? Linguistics Vanguard 3,s1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2005. The productivity of a ‘source of information’ construction: Or, where grammaticalization theory and construction grammar meet. (talk at the workshop “From ideational to interpersonal: Perspectives from grammaticalization”, Leuven, 10.02.2015).
Perek, Florent. 2012. Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics 23,3. 601–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk. 2019. How, why and where does argument structure vary? A usage-based investigation into the Dutch transitive-prepositional alternation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Freek Van de Velde & Stefan Grondelaers. 2021. Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics 32,3. 487–528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reineke, Silke. 2016. Wissenszuschreibungen in der Interaktion: Eine gesprächsanalytische Untersuchung impliziter und expliziter Formen der Zuschreibung von Wissen. Heidelberg: Winter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rinas, Karsten. 2007. Bekanntheit? Begründung? Einigkeit? Zur semantischen Analyse der Abtönungspartikel ja. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 44,4. 205–211.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2007. The role of numbers and statistics within Conversation Analysis. Communication Methods and Measures 1,1. 65–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sambre, Paul & Geert Brône. 2013. Cut and break. The multimodal expression of instrumentality and causality. (talk at Mapping Multimodal Dialogue, RWTH Aachen, 22.11.2013).
Schafroth, Elmar. 2023. Familienähnlichkeiten und Konstruktionsfamilien: Begriffsbestimmungen und Analysen. In Fabio Mollica & Sören Stumpf (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IX. Konstruktionsfamilien im Deutschen, 27–53. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schönherr, Beatrix. 1993. Prosodische und nonverbale Signale für Parenthesen. “Parasyntax” in Fernsehdiskussionen. Deutsche Sprache 211. 223–243.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Syntax — Prosodie — nonverbale Kommunikation. Empirische Untersuchungen zur Interaktion sprachlicher und parasprachlicher Ausdrucksmittel im Gespräch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023. Multimodale Kontextualisierung in Drameninszenierungen. Eine interaktionslinguistische Untersuchung am Beispiel von Konnektoren und Reformulierungen. Unpublished habilitation thesis, Universität Innsbruck.
Schoonjans, Steven. 2017. Multimodal Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues. Linguistics Vanguard 3,s1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Modalpartikeln als multimodale Konstruktionen. Eine korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Modal particle meanings: New insights from gesture research. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17,2. 303–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, et al. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung 101. 353–402.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Thomas Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8,2. 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stetter, Christian. 2005. System und Performanz. Symboltheoretische Grundlagen von Medientheorie und Sprachwissenschaft. Weilerswist: VelbrückGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stumpf, Sören & Fabio Mollica. 2023. Konstruktionsfamilien im Deutschen: Begriffsverständnis, Forschungsstand und Konzeption des Bandes. In Fabio Mollica & Sören Stumpf (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IX. Konstruktionsfamilien im Deutschen, 9–25. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stutz, Lena. 2024. Wo ein Sprichwort ist, ist auch ein Muster: Korpusbasierte Studien zur Produktivität und Schematizität deutscher Sprichwortmuster. Linguistische Berichte 2791. 249–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2019. Prototype effects in grammar. In: Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Key Topics, 127–147. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uhrig, Peter. 2022. Hand gestures with verbs of throwing: Collostructions, style and metaphor. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 101. 99–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, Tobias. 2023. A gradient notion of constructionhood. Constructions 151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann. 2023. Constructionist Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Trijp, Remi. 2024. Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 16,2. 311–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander. 2017. Do we really need a Multimodal Construction Grammar? Linguistics Vanguard 3,s1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander & Alexander Lasch. 2011. Von der geschriebenen zur gesprochenen Sprache: Quo vadis Konstruktionsgrammatik? In Alexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze, 275–281. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Konstruktionsgrammatik. Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth. 2014a. English multimodal motion constructions. Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium 81. 14–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014b. Gibt es multimodale Konstruktionen? Eine Studie zu [V(motion) in circles] und [all the way from X PREP Y]. Gesprächsforschung 151. 1–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2025. Construction Grammar and gesture. In Mirjam Fried & Kiki Nikiforidou (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, 384–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth & Geert Brône. 2011. Ad-hoc-Konstruktionen in der Interaktion: eine korpusbasierte Studie dialogischer Resonanzerzeugung. In Alexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze, 255–273. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2019. Mimesis theory, learning, and polysemiotic communication. In Michael A. Peters (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue