Home Linguistics & Semiotics Is there a multimodal construction based on non-deictic so in German?
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Is there a multimodal construction based on non-deictic so in German?

  • Jana Ningelgen and Peter Auer EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: June 29, 2017
Linguistics Vanguard
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard Volume 3 Issue s1

Abstract

The existence of multimodal constructions is highly disputed. One of the most straightforward examples of such constructions includes deictics, among them the German manner adverbial so (‘like this’) (cf. Stukenbrock 2014a, Take the words out of my mouth: Verbal instructions as embodied practices. Journal of Pragmatics 65. 80–102, 2015, Deixis in der Face-to-Face-Interaktion. Berlin, München & Boston: De Gruyter), whose deictic use requires a constellation of grammatical, prosodic and gestural as well as gaze-related features. While this multimodal construction is uncontroversial, this paper tests (and refutes) the broader claim that German so is regularly accompanied by gestures (Streeck 2002: 582, Grammars, words, and embodied meanings. On the evolution and uses of so and like. Journal of Communication 52(3). 581–596). We show that non-stressed, non-deictic so can but need not be coupled with an iconic gesture and hence doesn’t qualify as a multimodal construction.

Keywords: multimodal constructions; non-deictic so

References

Auer, Peter. 2004. Construction grammar meets conversation: Einige Überlegungen am Beispiel von so-Konstruktionen. In S. Günthner & W. Imo (eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, 291–314. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894158.291Search in Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan, Bietti, Lucas M. & Kasper Kok. 2014. Multimodal alignment during collaborative remembering. Memory Studies 7(3). 354–369.10.1177/1750698014530624Search in Google Scholar

Ehlich, Konrad. 1987. So – Überlegungen zum Verhältnis sprachlicher Formen und sprachlichen Handelns, allgemein und an einem widerspenstigen Beispiel. In I. Rosengren (ed.), Sprache und Pragmatik, 279–298. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Search in Google Scholar

Fricke, Ellen. 2014. Between reference and meaning: Object-related and interpretant-related gestures in face-to-face interaction. In C. Müller et al. (eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, vol. II, 1788–1802. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110302028.1788Search in Google Scholar

Fricke, Ellen. 2015. Grammatik und Multimodalität. In Ch. Dürscheid & Jan Georg Schneider (eds.), Handbuch Satz – Äußerung – Schema, 48–76. Berlin & Bosten: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110296037-004Search in Google Scholar

Gullberg, Marianne & Kenneth Holmqvist. 2006. What speakers do and what addressees look at: Visual attention to gestures in human interaction live and on video. Pragmatics & Cognition 14(1). 53–82.10.1075/pc.14.1.05gulSearch in Google Scholar

Gullberg, Marianne & Sotaro Kita. 2009. Attention to speech-accompanying gestures: Eye-movements and information-uptake. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 33(4). 251–277.10.1007/s10919-009-0073-2Search in Google Scholar

Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture. Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511807572Search in Google Scholar

Ladewig, S. H. 2011, Putting the cyclic gesture on a cognitive basis. CogniTextes. 6. https://cognitextes.revues.org/40610.4000/cognitextes.406Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Metaphoric gesture and cognitive linguistics. In Alan Cienki & Cordula Müller (eds.), Metaphor and gesture, 249–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/gs.3.14lanSearch in Google Scholar

McNeill, David. 1985. So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review 92(3). 350–371.10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.350Search in Google Scholar

Meehan, Teresa. 1991. It’s like, ‘What’s happening in the evolution of like?’ A theory of grammaticalization. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 16. 37–51.10.17161/KWPL.1808.423Search in Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael. 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004Search in Google Scholar

Streeck, Jürgen. 1993. Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs 60(4). 275–299.10.1080/03637759309376314Search in Google Scholar

Streeck, Jürgen. 2002. Grammars, words, and embodied meanings. On the evolution and uses of so and like. Journal of Communication 52(3). 581–596.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02563.xSearch in Google Scholar

Streeck, Jürgen. 2009. Gesturecraft: The manufacture of meaning. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/gs.2Search in Google Scholar

Streeck, Jürgen. 2016. Gestische Praxis und sprachliche Form. In A. Deppermann, H. Feilke & A. Linke (eds.), Sprachliche und kommunikative Praktiken. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110451542-004Search in Google Scholar

Stukenbrock, Anja. 2014a. Take the words out of my mouth: Verbal instructions as embodied practices. Journal of Pragmatics 65. 80–102.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.017Search in Google Scholar

Stukenbrock, Anja. 2014b. Pointing to an ‘empty’ space: Deixis am Phantasma in face-to-face interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 74. 70–93.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.001Search in Google Scholar

Stukenbrock, Anja. 2015. Deixis in der Face-to-Face-Interaktion. Berlin, München & Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110307436Search in Google Scholar

Thurmair, Maria. 2001. Vergleiche und Vergleichen. Eine Studie zu Form und Funktion der Vergleichsstrukturen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar

Wiese, Heike. 2011. So as a focus marker in German. Linguistics 49(5). 991–1039.10.1515/ling.2011.028Search in Google Scholar

Wiese, Heike. 2012. Kiezdeutsch. München: Beck.10.17104/9783406630354Search in Google Scholar

Zima, Elisabeth. 2014a. English multimodal constructions. A construction grammar perspective. Studies van de BKL – Travaux du CBL – Papers of the LSB 8. http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/linguist/SBKL/sbkl2013/Zim2013.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Zima, Elisabeth. 2014b. 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.http://www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2014/ga-zima.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Zima, Elisabeth. in press. Multimodal constructional resemblance. The case of English circular motion constructions. In F. Ruiz De Mendoza, A. Luzondo & P. Pérez-Sobrino (eds.), Constructing families of constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-08-01
Accepted: 2016-10-25
Published Online: 2017-06-29

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  2. Multimodality and construction grammar
  4. Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory
  6. Utterance Construction Grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of constructions
  8. Apposition: A multimodal construction? The multimodality of linguistic constructions in the light of usage-based theory
  10. Is there a multimodal construction based on non-deictic so in German?
  12. Multimodal existential constructions in German: Manual actions of giving as experiential substrate for grammatical and gestural patterns
  14. On the multimodality of [all the way from X PREP Y]
  16. Timelines and multimodal constructions: Facing new challenges
  18. Multimodal form-meaning pairs for blended classic joint attention
  20. Multimodal rhetoric: Fictive interaction strategies in political discourse
  22. The “Negative-Assessment-Construction” – A multimodal pattern based on a recurrent gesture?
  24. The shrug as marker of obviousness
  26. Multimodal Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues
  28. Do we really need a Multimodal Construction Grammar?
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0051
Keywords for this article
multimodal constructions; non-deictic so

Articles in the same Issue

  2. Multimodality and construction grammar
  4. Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory
  6. Utterance Construction Grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of constructions
  8. Apposition: A multimodal construction? The multimodality of linguistic constructions in the light of usage-based theory
  10. Is there a multimodal construction based on non-deictic so in German?
  12. Multimodal existential constructions in German: Manual actions of giving as experiential substrate for grammatical and gestural patterns
  14. On the multimodality of [all the way from X PREP Y]
  16. Timelines and multimodal constructions: Facing new challenges
  18. Multimodal form-meaning pairs for blended classic joint attention
  20. Multimodal rhetoric: Fictive interaction strategies in political discourse
  22. The “Negative-Assessment-Construction” – A multimodal pattern based on a recurrent gesture?
  24. The shrug as marker of obviousness
  26. Multimodal Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues
  28. Do we really need a Multimodal Construction Grammar?
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 14.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0051/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button