Speech-gesture constructions in cognitive grammar: The case of beats and points

4.1 Analysis 1: beats in multimodal constructions

We claim that beat gestures are symbolic structures. Figure 3 illustrates the schematic phonological and semantic structure of beat gestures. Beats are expressed phonologically as manner of movement. Semantically, beats are specified in the information structure channel. A primary semantic function of beats is to emphasize or highlight some material external to the beat, typically expressed in the spoken modality.

Figure 3:

Beat symbolic structure.

A significant property of beats is that they are phonologically and conceptually dependent structures, requiring autonomous structures for their instantiation. Phonologically, beats require an autonomous gesture carrier for their articulatory elaboration (indicated by the bold arrow in Figure 4). This is canonically specified by a handshape or, more accurately, by the movement of a handshape, since manner of movement is dependent on movement. It is possible for the movement of any more substantive and autonomous structure to serve as the phonological carrier for a beat. Beats are also phonologically dependent on symbolic structures expressed in spoken language. Beats align with and are dependent on pitch accents, which are specified in the intonation channel. Pitch accents are also dependent, making schematic reference to segmental content.

Figure 4:

Beat carrier.

Semantically, beats are dependent structures making reference to some autonomous content, the information that is emphasized or highlighted. The emphasized information is typically specified in the objective content channel of the accompanying speech. As we will see in our data analysis, because speech tends to be expressed as complex constructions that integrate objective content with information structure, beats exhibit high degrees of semantic complexity.

Example (1), taken from a popular U.S. television talk show, shows a multimodal construction that includes a series of simple beats. ^[3]

At this point in the interaction, after host Stephen Colbert says, “So let’s talk about the movie”, actor Bradley Whitford answers questions about the plot of a film in which he co-starred alongside actor Molly Shannon. Then, in (1), Whitford performs a stancetaking act in which he subjectively evaluates his co-star’s performance in the film. During the expression of the evaluative stance act in the spoken utterance, Whitford uses several iterations of beat gestures. The beats in this example are expressed as a stressed manner of movement on a recurring downward movement of the speaker’s right hand, which is holding a pair of glasses (see Figure 5). ^[4] In this example the beat carrier is not symbolic; rather it simply serves the instrumental function of holding glasses.

Figure 5:

First beat produced in example (1).

The beats in example (1) emphasize important symbolic structures in the spoken construction that are salient to the information structure conceptualization channel: the topical participant in the utterance (Molly Shannon), the current discourse topic (this movie), and informationally focused elements in the utterance (unsentimental, brave performance). A detailed account of informational focus is outside of the scope of this paper, but Langacker (2008: 208) broadly characterizes focus as the components in an expression “which the speaker wishes to foreground as a significant departure from what has already been established in the immediately preceding discourse”. Informational focus is an aspect of information structure in which “new, nonpresupposed information is marked by one or more pitch accents” (Kiss 1998: 246). Halliday (1967: 204) describes information focus as a type of emphasis “whereby the speaker marks out a part of a message block as that which he wishes to be interpreted as informative” (i.e., textually and situationally new information). In (1), we see that the particularly informative elements of objective content at the semantic pole of the spoken composite utterance (i.e., the topic and nonpresupposed information) are emphasized with dependent symbolic structures in gesture and speech (i.e., beats and pitch accents, respectively). Additionally, each of the topical and focused elements in the spoken utterance that are emphasized with beat gestures have salient roles in the stancetaking act that is evoked by the spoken composite utterance.

In looking at the entire utterance, we see that it evokes an evaluative stancetaking act within the information structure channel. Evaluative stance has been defined as an act through which a conceptualizer (the stancetaker) “orients to an object of stance” (the target of the evaluation) and “characterizes it as having some specific quality or value” (Du Bois 2007: 143). Table 1 more clearly distinguishes the components of this particular stancetaking act (adapted from the format used in Du Bois 2007).

In the utterance immediately preceding the one shown in example (1), Whitford evaluates the authenticity of the film that he is promoting in accurately capturing the experience of losing a parent (the topic of the film). He mentions that he has personally experienced the loss of his own parents and says that he (“I”) “thought this was the most honest (film) including the humor”. In (1), the target of evaluative stance changes from the preceding utterance. The evaluative target moves from the authenticity of the film to Molly Shannon’s performance in the film. This change is indicated by the complement-taking predicate phrase (CTP-phrase) “I have to say”. This collocational CTP-phrase signals that the speaker will present a new evaluation in the complement clause that follows and prepares the addressee for a transition to a new target of evaluation (see Thompson 2002 for an analysis of these CTP-phrases as stance markers). The apex of the first beat aligns phonologically with the complement-taking predicate “say”, which is the most substantive word in the CTP-phrase.

Notice that the speaker-stancetaker in (1), which is elaborated by “I”, does not receive a beat gesture. In this specific example, the stancetaker is not particularly salient. One reason why we argue this to be the case is because the speaker is the expected stancetaker in language use. What is perhaps more important to this particular interaction, however, is that the speaker was already overtly established as stancetaker in the stance act expressed in the preceding utterance. In this case, the speaker as stancetaker is still expected to be active and accessible to the addressee. We will see a different pattern in the second example (2) when different stancetakers are introduced across juxtaposed utterances.

The second beat in (1) aligns with “Shannon”, emphasizing the new target of stance (Molly Shannon) to which the evaluation is oriented. The beat that falls on “Shannon”, rather than Molly, singles out the particular participant at whom the evaluation is directed. It is the word that selects for reference the particular Molly whose performance is being evaluated and distinguishes her from other possible “Mollys” in the world. The next two beats occur on “this movie”, which is the current discourse topic but also part of the object of stance in this evaluation. These two beats, in addition to emphasizing the discourse topic, serve a more localized (i.e., immediate) role in this construction of emphasizing the context or scope in which the evaluative stance of Molly Shannon’s performance is to be interpreted. Whitford is making an evaluation of Molly Shannon’s performance in this particular movie, not an evaluation of her general acting abilities. The fifth and sixth beats align with the evaluative objective content. The attributive expressions “unsentimental” and “brave” assign a favorable evaluation of Molly Shannon’s performance in the (this) movie. The final beat aligns with “performance”, which is also part of the target of the stance act but is temporally separated from the other meanings that are targeted in the evaluation. The full target of evaluation is Molly Shannon’s performance in this movie. Whitford’s use of beats in this example emphasizes components in the objective content of speech that serve important roles in the evaluation. The symbolic units in speech that are emphasized with beats function to (1) introduce a new stancetaking act, (2) orient to a new object (or target) of stance, and (3) provide an evaluation.

In (1), the spoken symbolic structures that are highlighted with beats are multifunctional. Not only do these spoken structures serve important roles in a particular stancetaking act that is relevant to the local discourse context; these elements serve key roles at a higher level of information structure, such as the roles of discourse topic and focused participant within that topic. While an utterance includes component elements that have semantic specification in the objective content channel, the significance of the elements to other elements within a spoken composite construction and the relation that construction has to neighboring constructions, is specified at the information structure channel. The meanings of beats are specified in the information structure channel because their meanings are reliant on the higher-level functions of the component structures in speech. The semantic function of a beat’s emphasis is not elaborated by the objective content of the spoken structure with which it is aligned. It is elaborated by the role the spoken structure serves within the composite utterance, across adjacent utterances, and in the broader discourse.

4.2 Analysis 2: beat and points in multimodal assemblies

In this section we examine constructions that incorporate a higher level of complexity in the gestural channel. We analyze multimodal symbolic assemblies that include the simultaneous and integrated expression of beats and pointing gestures.

Our analysis of pointing is also based on CG (Langacker 2016b; Wilcox and Occhino 2016). Pointing falls within the semantic domain of nominal grounding. Grounding serves to indicate the epistemic status of a nominal or clausal referent; that is, grounding specifies where a referent “stands in relation to what we currently know and what we are trying to ascertain” (Langacker 2008: 297). For nominals, the goal is to identify a selected referent. Reference is intersubjective: nominal grounding permits the speaker and hearer to identify and focus their attention on the same referent from among the multitude of other entities that populate our mental universe. According to Langacker (2016b: 106), “the basis for identification is a path – a series of connections – leading from the conceptualizer (the origin) to the referent (the goal or target)”.

Figure 6 depicts a canonical case of pointing. G is the actual ground in the speech event, S and H are the speaker and hearer. The ground includes the area and entities visible to the speaker and hearer, the onstage or objective scene (OS). Pointing (solid arrow) singles out or identifies the one entity on which the speaker wants the hearer to focus her attention (FOC). This act of pointing has a “directive force” (double arrow): “it instructs the hearer to follow its direction, so that both interlocutors end up focusing attention on the same entity, the gesture’s intended referent” (Langacker 2016b: 110). In canonical pointing, the directive force of a pointing gesture instructs the hearer to visually follow its direction. In more abstract pointing, the hearer may be instructed to conceptually “follow” the direction so that both interlocutors focus attention on the same conceptual entity. ^[5]

Figure 6:

Canonical pointing gesture (after Langacker 2016b).

Langacker’s analysis suggests that pointing consists of two components: a directive force of attention and an entity on which that attention is focused. We thus analyze pointing gestures as complex symbolic structures (i.e., constructions) consisting of two component symbolic structures. The first, a pointing device, serves to direct attention. Its phonological pole is some articulator capable of directing the hearer to follow its direction. Pointing devices vary from culture to culture, the index finger and lax hand being common in western cultures, although any articulator sufficiently mobile enough to be moved or oriented toward some real or imagined entity could serve as a pointing device. The semantic pole of the pointing device symbolic structure is schematic, with a meaning of “direct attention to” or “focus attention on”.

The second component symbolic structure is a Place. ^[6] The phonological pole of Place is some location in the ground, the visible physical space surrounding the interlocutors in the current speech event. In a canonical use of pointing it is the location of the referent in the objective situation. In terms of conceptualization, it is the end point of a subjective mental path leading from the conceptualizer to the entity on which the speaker wants the hearer to focus her attention. The semantic pole of Place schematically profiles a thing; in an actual speech event it is the intended referent. The two symbolic structures constituting a pointing gesture are thus a gestural construction, as shown in Figure 7. Above the diagram, the double arrow corresponds to Langacker’s directive force which is the semantic function of the pointing device. The bolded circle represents the focus of attention, the entity identified by Place.

Figure 7:

Pointing construction.

As Kendon (2010: 20) has noted, “However pointing is done, all actions regarded as ‘pointing’, seem to have in common a characteristic movement pattern in which the body part regarded as doing the pointing is moved in a way that is recognized as having [a] well defined linear path.” Conceptually, we suggest that this movement pattern, a dynamic quality described by Eco (1976) as ‘movement toward’, corresponds to the mental path leading from the conceptualizer to the target or intended referent. Phonologically, it is realized as a dependent movement of some more autonomous articulator. The movement, an elaboration of a more autonomous structure, operates on the pointing device’s location, resulting in the linear path ‘movement toward’. Movement also can operate on orientation, producing an orienting rather than linear movement. In either case, the function of the pointing device is to direct attention, conceptually and perhaps visually, at the Place.

The pointing device can integrate with a beat gesture to form a higher lever composite symbolic structure in the gestural channel, a beat-point construction (Figure 8). Together the handshape and movement, either linear or orienting, serve as the phonological carrier for the beat symbolic structure. Because the carrier is a pointing device, it is itself a symbolic structure. The beat, phonologically expressed as manner of movement, modifies the movement of the pointing device. Additionally, the semantic poles of the two symbolic structures are conceptually compatible: the schematic meaning of the pointing device is to direct attention, and the beat has a schematic meaning of emphasis, a kind of focused attention.

Figure 8:

Beat-point construction.

As we will see in our data analysis, pointing constructions can also function to establish reference points. Reference points recruit our ability “to invoke the conception of one entity for purposes of establishing mental contact with another” (Langacker 1993: 5). A reference point, labeled R in Figure 9, defines a conceptual region, the dominion (D), which includes all the entities or targets (T) with which the reference point affords mental access. A reference point permits a conceptualizer (C) to establish mental contact with a target. In other words, the conceptualizer’s focus of attention follows a mental path, through the reference point, and makes mental contact with a particular target.

Figure 9:

Reference point.

Reference points figure in many constructions, including possessives (Langacker 1993), pronominal anaphora (Van Hoek 1995, 1997), and topics (Langacker 1993), including discourse topics. Reference points are conceptual entities anchoring conceptual structures, their associated dominion (Van Hoek 1997). When used in pointing constructions in signed languages (Wilcox and Occhino 2016), and as we will demonstrate for pointing constructions in gesture, reference points can be realized phonologically as actual points directing attention in the ground, the visible space surrounding interlocutors.

In using a pointing construction as a reference point, the pointing device directs attention to a particular phonological location in the current ground, the phonological pole of a Place structure. Initially, the pointing construction functions in its canonical role to direct attention to a grounded nominal. Once established, any grounded nominal can serve conceptually as a reference point. Subsequent points to this Place structure renew mental contact with the nominal, which now functions as a reference point, instructing the hearer to continue the mental journey to a target in the reference point’s (the nominal’s) dominion. How does the hearer know which of myriad entities in the reference point’s dominion will be the target, the new focus of attention? One strategy is to simultaneously name the target in the speech stream.

Our second example takes place during one of the 2016 presidential primary debates between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in Flint, Michigan. The candidates are standing on a stage, both behind podiums that are approximately at waist level. From the audience perspective, Clinton is on the left and Sanders is on the right.

During this part of the debate, the audience has been permitted to ask the two candidates questions. The particular segment of the discourse that we have selected to analyze occurs during one of Clinton’s turns in responding to the question “How will you encourage companies to keep factories here in the U.S. instead of moving them to other countries?”. In Clinton’s first turn answering the question, she emphasizes the incentives she plans to give companies who keep their manufacturing plants in the U.S. and describes the penalties she would like to impose on companies that move manufacturing work to other countries. Sanders begins his first turn (following Clinton) by criticizing Clinton for her past voting record, which includes her support of trans-national trade agreements that had provisions in them that Sanders argues were bad for manufacturing jobs in the United States. Sanders accuses Clinton of “voting for every disastrous trade agreement and voting for corporate America”.

Clinton, in her second turn, responds to Sanders’s criticism by shifting the discourse topic to the auto industry bailout. She criticizes Sanders for not supporting the bailout in early 2009. It is likely that Clinton believes that this topic is especially important to the members of the audience. The people of Flint, Michigan have historically relied heavily on the auto industry for jobs, and the bailout was crucial for the economy of the state of Michigan. Clinton then returns to Sanders’ criticism about her voting record aligning with corporate interests and defends herself by emphasizing her vote on one bill in particular, an auto industry bailout bill negotiated by the Bush administration at the end of his second term in 2009. She acknowledges that there were provisions in the bill with which she did not agree and which she would have written differently, but follows with a play to the audience. Clinton says, “But was the auto bailout money in it [the bill]? The three hundred and fifty billion dollars that was needed to begin the restructuring of the auto industry. Yes, it was.” From this point, we begin our analysis. A transcription of the spoken discourse included in our analysis is shown in (2). ^[7]

We now explore how gestures, particularly beats, points, and beat-point constructions, interact with the spoken language in this example. Appendix 1 shows the conventions used for the labeling of the beat and point gestures. The alignment of beat and pointing gestures with speech are included in the transcription.

In order to account for the symbolic integration of the gestural expressions with the spoken language constructions in this second example, we again need to discuss stancetaking, this time examining stance acts that Clinton performs. We focus first on the initial intonation unit (IU) in the example that is shown in lines 1–5 in the excerpt. In this IU, Clinton establishes a semantic relationship between an evaluative stance that she has established in prior discourse (i.e., Sanders is a one issue candidate) and a new stance act (i.e., people in positions of responsibility are required to make difficult decisions).

Table 2 more clearly distinguishes the components of this stancetaking act. The semantic relationship that is established between the two stances is complex and accessed inferentially. Together the two juxtaposed stances serve two complementary functions: (1) Clinton defending herself against Sanders’s criticism about her voting record and (2) Clinton shifting the criticism to Sanders for simplifying the complexities of bipartisanship.

In examining the gestures in the first stance act, we see that Clinton produces a pointing construction on the word “I” in the first clause in line 1 (Figure 10). The pointing construction is phonologically expressed with an open-B handshape, the palm contacting her chest. This pointing construction identifies the semantic pole of the Place with the speaker, as does the spoken first-person pronoun. Clinton’s point is followed by a hold during the expression “talk about” in which her hand remains at her chest in the same location as the phonological pole of the Place that was just established. With this hold, Clinton is continuing to make use of the symbolic Place that she established with the point. The objective content evoked by the co-expressed speech (i.e., the speech during the hold) bears a relationship to the semantic pole of Place. Specifically, Clinton (“I”) semantically assumes the agent role in the process profiled by the verbal expression “talk (about)”. This verbal process (a speaking event) is conceptually dependent on the agent or speaker performing the speaking event (i.e., Hillary Clinton). Clinton also serves as the semantic pole of Place. The hold associated with this Place evokes (through gesture) the relationship between the verbal process and the participant role on which it is dependent (encoded in speech). Following the hold, Clinton performs a second pointing construction in line 1 (Figure 11). This pointing construction is also phonologically expressed with an open-B handshape but here the movement is directed contralaterally to the left side of Clinton’s body (toward Bernie Sanders). ^[8] The point slightly precedes the spoken language expression “Senator Sanders” that elaborates Sanders as the semantic pole of Place in this pointing construction. Three head beats follow the points in line 1, aligning with each of the words, one issue candidate.

Figure 10:

Clinton point to “I”.

Figure 11:

Clinton point to Sanders.

Returning to the discussion of the construction shown in line 1 as a stance act, we see points being assigned to both the stancetaker (Clinton) and the target of stance (Sanders) and beats assigned to the evaluative meanings in the stance act (one issue candidate). Each of the key aspects of the stance act are marked with attention directing devices in gesture (either points or beats). The beat gestures that align with the evaluation presented in speech are expressed by the head rather than produced manually. Unlike the Whitford example in Section 4.1, there is no beat assigned to the stance target. This example, however, has an important functional difference from the Whitford example; in this case, Clinton is not performing a new stance act. This stance, in which Clinton characterizes Sanders as a “one issue candidate”, has already been established. Clinton is re-evoking it to serve a new function in relationship to the entirely new stance act that she performs in lines 4–5. The stance act in line 1 is construed as already known by the audience. We can see this expectation reflected in the information structure channel of the speech through the embedding and subordination of this stance act (signaled by the subordinator “when”). It is implied in this use of a temporal adverbial phrase that Clinton has repeatedly expressed this stance about Sanders. Clinton’s recycling of a previously established stance might be the motivation for the low degree of emphasis (at least in the form of beat gestures) that components in this stance act receive.

Separating the first two stancetaking acts in this example, we see a transitional clause (lines 2–3) I mean, very clearly. This clause serves a similar function as I have to say did in the Whitford example (1). Through the use of the first-person pronoun and the propositional attitude predicate I mean, this clause signals that the complement clause that follows will introduce a new stance act. Despite the speakers in the two examples using different semantic types of complement-taking predicates (an utterance predicate, say, and a propositional attitude predicate, mean), the clauses are similar in that one of the functions of each is to introduce a new stance act. The predicates in both examples receive a beat gesture (performed with a strong head beat in this second example). This transitional clause I mean also participates in the stance act that follows by explicitly identifying the stancetaker as the speaker with the overt use of the first-person pronoun. A manual beat that aligns with the first-person pronoun emphasizes the role Hillary Clinton has as stancetaker in the entirely new stance act that follows. The transitional clause in lines 2–3 is also important because it suggests that the prior stance that Clinton has recalled in line 1 is semantically related to the upcoming stance (lines 4–5). Specifically, the clause, I mean very clearly is conceptually dependent on the two stances (the one that precedes it and the one that follows) to have meaning.

The second stance act in this example (lines 4–5) receives beats that emphasize the target (or object) of stance and the evaluation. In this case, the evaluation is introduced before the full target of stance is expressed, and the strongest beats align with words that express the most substantive meanings related to the evaluation (hard choices). Beats that are reduced in movement size align with the words that express meanings associated with the target of the stance act (you/you’re, in, positions, responsibility). The stancetaker and evaluation receive a greater degree of emphasis, in terms of the force of the beat, than the stance target. It is important to note that the stance target is initially construed with a generic use of the second-person pronoun (you). This use of generic reference overtly codes the target of stance as a category of people rather than a specific individual. The category includes people in positions of responsibility, a grouping to which Clinton (and Sanders) belong. This particular evaluative stance act has to be interpreted within the context of a previous stance taken by Sanders. Clinton seems to use this stance act to reject alignment with Sanders’s prior position in which he suggested that Clinton supports the interests of corporate America. Rather than overtly defending herself in speech (e.g., I had to make hard choices), Clinton construes this evaluation in lines 4–5 as targeting other nonspecific referents who are politicians. By doing this she implies that difficult decisions come with the job of being a politician and that she is not the only politician who has had to compromise on legislation. Perhaps the attenuated beats on the target of stance are related to the fact that Clinton is obscuring the primary target of the stance, herself. Clinton is not overtly coded in speech as the target of stance but can be metonymically understood to be included as part of the target because she is someone in a position of responsibility. The actual target of stance (Clinton) is also retrievable through the relationship this stance act has to the broader discourse, Clinton defending herself against Sanders’s earlier criticism.

In the next intonation unit (lines 6–8) we find beats simultaneously integrating not only with meanings expressed in the spoken language but also with pointing constructions to form symbolic assemblies in gesture. In line 6, Clinton directs a point on the words the two Senators to a location in the audience, fully extending her arm toward that location, which is the phonological pole of the pointing construction’s Place structure. It is perhaps also the physical location of the Senators, who may well have been present for the debate and seated in the audience. The schematic semantic pole of this Place is elaborated by the spoken phrase the two Senators (Figure 12a). As the pointing device reaches the phonological location of the Place, Clinton simultaneously performs a strong beat gesture with both her head and hand. The beat aligns with the senators, who function discursively as both topical participants as well as stancetakers in the stance act that is presented in a clause that follows (line 8). Clinton was the stancetaker in the prior stance act. This strong emphasis on senators may, at least in part, be due to the fact that they are being established as new stancetakers (in addition to the important relationship the senators have to the audience). Subsequent points are directed to the same location, with beats also occurring on the words stood, and said (Figure 12(b) and 12(c)). Each beat-point is attenuated phonologically, both in the force of their downward movements and in the degree to which the arm is extended. The last beat, on the word said, is the least extended of the three; this beat is also attenuated, produced only with the hand.

Figure 12:

Clinton “the two senators stood on the floor and said…”.

There is a notable semantic difference between the first Place structure that is emphasized and the subsequently emphasized Place structures. In the first, the schematic semantic pole of the Place structure, a thing, is elaborated by the spoken words the two Senators. In the subsequent two pointing constructions, the semantic pole of Place is not elaborated by the simultaneous spoken words: the semantic poles of these two Places are not ‘stood’ and ‘said’. Rather, by directing the pointing device to the same Place already used in the pointing construction associated with the two Senators, these points refer anaphorically to “the two Senators” as a reference point, and its dominion provides “a context with respect to which an expression is interpreted (or into which its content is integrated)” (Langacker 1993: 24). The spoken words in this case evoke targets in the dominion of the reference point: they identify salient actions that the senators perform as members of Congress: standing (on the floor) and saying are actions they took to garner support for the passage of legislation to release the bailout funds. These actors and their actions are also important to Clinton’s defense of her position on the bailout (voting in favor of it) and her continued response to Sander’s criticism. The senators, with whom she expects her audience to align, publicly held the same position that she did. In the composite gestural construction, the point and beat work together to establish a reference point and to emphasize that reference point (and its dominion) as being particularly salient in the discourse, for the reasons we have discussed.

At this point, Clinton changes the direction of movement, and in our analysis, although she continues to produce a series of rapid beats with the B-handshape, the hand no longer serves as a pointing device in a pointing construction. The direction of her arm moves from central or neutral gesture space along a linear path towards Clinton’s right. A quick, reduced beat occurs on we, with stronger beats occurring on get, this, and money. The beats are short, downward movements along the rightward path. The path movement ends with Clinton’s arm extended at a final location at her right on the word released (Figure 13). This path movement can be interpreted as metaphorically mapping the concept of time onto space using a transversal temporal timeline (i.e., one that runs horizontally), as has been observed in co-speech gesture in some languages (Casasanto and Jasmin 2012; Cooperrider and Núñez 2009). In particular, English speakers typically gesture from left to right to show development through time when using a transversal timeline. In this example, the event being described in the complement clause of the speech event, “get this money released”, emphasizes the protracted process leading up to the release of the money. This movement from left to right during the expression of the beats with the complement clause may be interpreted as evoking that development through time. The placement of beats on we, get, this, money and released along with the path motion seem to emphasize the steps in the process of getting the money released by aligning with the most salient meanings in the event structure (the agent, the patient and the event). The composite multimodal construction emphasizes the process and steps directed at achieving the end goal, which is the release of the bailout funds. At the same time, the complement clause elaborates on the stancetaking act by introducing the target and the evaluation of the stance act taken by the two senators (Table 3). Again, the beats are multifunctional in the emphatic role they serve in the multimodal composite, with one dimension of their meaning corresponding (now familiarly) to the emphasis of roles associated with stancetaking.

Figure 13:

“We have to get this money released”.

In lines 9–11, Clinton again produces pointing constructions simultaneously with beats expressed on both the hands and head. The first occurs in the phrase “I went with them” (Figure 14). One might think that the pointing construction co-occurring with I would be directed towards the speaker, as we saw earlier in this example (line 1). Here, however, the B-handshape that serves as the pointing device and manual beat carrier on the word I (line 9) is directed toward the location associated with the Place previously established for the senators and their stance. Clinton continues to use this location in her next statement, “and I went with Barack Obama,” again placing a point and a beat on I. While the arm extension associated with the subsequent point is reduced or attenuated, the manner of movement associated with the beat is strong, being co-expressed manually and with the head. Conceptually, by saying, “I went with them and I went with Barack Obama”, Clinton has aligned herself with the stance of the two senators (“them”) and their efforts to get the money for the auto industry bailout released, which she established in the previous intonation unit. President Obama’s stance (which Clinton established as being in support of the bailout several minutes prior in the discourse) is also shown to be included in the dominion of the reference point that was previously established in that location. She accomplishes alignment phonologically in gesture by using the same location, a physical location in the audience, across all these Place structures. Through this use of the phonological location associated with the reference point in gesture, Clinton also aligns herself conceptually with the voting members of the audience, many of whom undoubtedly were workers in the auto industry and who supported their state senators and Obama’s efforts to get the bailout approved. She further emphasizes this alignment through the co-expression of beats with the pointing construction.

Figure 14:

Clinton “I went with them”.

This conceptual and phonological alignment is then used to create a vivid contrast in line 11. During this IU, Clinton changes arms and produces pointing gestures with her left arm. First, she directs the B-handshape pointing device on her left hand toward a Place on her left while saying, “You did not” (Figure 15). The phonological pole of this Place coincides with the physical location of Sanders, who is standing on her left. The semantic pole of Place, which is elaborated by the second-person pronoun “you”, is Bernie Sanders. Contrasting with the Place used for the two senators, Obama, and her alignment with them, Sanders is conceptually placed in opposition to the bailout and its supporters; by switching arms and pointing to Sanders with a strong beat manner of motion, she strengthens the contrast by using his location on stage as the phonological location of the gestural Place structure produced with You. Through this complex use of speech and gesture, Sanders is portrayed as being politically, conceptually, and physically (phonologically) up on stage, aloof as it were, and non-aligned with the auto industry bailout, the politicians who supported it, and most importantly, the audience. On the other hand, Clinton has portrayed herself as politically, conceptually, and physically (phonologically) aligned with the voters, their senators, and the president who supported the restructuring and rescue of their employer, the auto industry.

Figure 15:

Clinton “You did not.”.

The complex beat-point constructions in lines 9–11 are used to establish and emphasize relationships between different stances, and by extension, different stancetakers. Beat-point constructions align with spoken symbolic structures that evoke the speaker and hearer at the semantic pole (I and you). In order to understand the significance of the repeated use of this schematic gestural construction (i.e., the beat-point construction) in these specific multimodal expressions, one has to consider the roles of the speaker and hearer at both the local level (within the specific utterance and neighboring utterances) as well as their role in the broader discourse context. If we look at the general discourse genre (i.e., Presidential debate) and context of the speaking event (in front of an audience from Michigan), we can recognize that the goal of this discourse is for Clinton to convince the audience of eligible voters and other eligible voters watching remotely that she is on their side and that, ultimately, they should vote for her rather than Bernie Sanders. Within this particular section of the discourse Clinton is making an appeal to the audience, hoping that they will recognize that she has stood with them in the past when Sanders has not. The overall aim of a Presidential debate is for the candidates to gain new supporters. If one considers the relationship between that aim and the local linguistic context (lines 9–11) in which Clinton shows her alignment with the voting audience and Sanders’ lack of alignment with the voting audience, the contrast in alignment between the two candidates is especially salient to the discourse. This saliency is overtly encoded in the gestural channel in the form of the magnified attention directing beat-point construction. One could analyze an emphasized point to Bernie Sanders as explicitly referring to Bernie Sanders, but it is the role that Sanders (evoked in speech by “you”) serves in the clausal context (topic of clause), the interactional setting (political opponent), and his relationship to the stances evoked in previous constructions (not aligned) that all interact with the use of this beat-point construction.