Chapter published in:
The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages: An emergent unit in interaction
Edited by Tsuyoshi Ono and Sandra A. Thompson
[Typological Studies in Language 128] 2020
► pp. 154–177

Multimodal noun phrases

| Linköping University
In co-present interaction, our bodies are continuously available for sense-making. Linguists, however, have generally analyzed grammatical patterns, such as noun phrases, separately from the rest of human behavior. This chapter looks at a collection of cases in Swedish, English, and Estonian, where the speaker initiates a noun phrase but completes it with an embodied demonstration. Other participants treat this multimodal structure as complete and comprehensible. Building on earlier research on syntactic-bodily units (Keevallik 2013, 2017) this study calls into question the analytic boundary between language and the body and argues that grammatical projection cross-cuts modalities even within the assumedly robust noun phrase.
Published online: 15 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.128.07kee
References

Transcription conventions

The paper uses multimodal transcription conventions developed by Lorenza Mondada
https://​www​.lorenzamondada​.net​/multimodal​-transcription

References

Auer, Peter
2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1): 7–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31(1):1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broth, Mathias & Keevallik, Leelo
2014 Getting ready to move as a couple: Accomplishing mobile formations in a dance class. Space and Culture 17(2): 107–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick
2009 The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
2000 Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–1522. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 Time in action. Current Anthropology 43: 19–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In Roots of Human Sociality, Nicholas J. Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds), 96–125. London: Berg Press.Google Scholar
Haviland, John B.
2007 Master speakers, master gesturers: A string quartet master class. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill [Gesture Studies 1], Susan D. Duncan, Justine Cassell & Elena T. Levy (eds), 147–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto
2005 Joint turn construction through language and the body: Notes on embodiment in coordinated participation in situated activities. Semiotica 156: 21–53.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
2001 Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. In Studies in Interactional Linguistics [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 10], Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 25–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul
1998 Emergent grammar. In New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 155–175. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Jones, Stanley E. & LeBaron, Curtis D.
2002 Research on the relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication: Emerging integrations. Journal of Communication 52: 499–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol
2015 How Languages Work. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2010 The interactional profile of a placeholder: The Estonian demonstrative see . In Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders [Typological Studies in Language 93], Nino Amiridze, Boyd H. Davis & Margaret Maclagan (eds), 139–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction. Discourse Processes 48(6): 404–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(1): 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015  Coordinating the temporalities of talk and dance. In: Temporality in Interaction, A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (eds.), 309–336. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2017 Linking performances: The temporality of contrastive grammar. In Linking Clauses and Actions in Social Interaction, Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 54–72. Helsinki: Finnish Literary Society.Google Scholar
2018 What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.
1995 Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional activities. Discourse Processes 19: 111–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Xiaoting
2013 Language and the body in the construction of units in Mandarin face-to-face interaction. In Units of Talk – Units of Action [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 25], Beatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds), 343–375. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2014 The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 65: 137–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20(3): 336–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mori, Junko & Hayashi, Makoto
2006 The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completions: A study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied Linguistics 27: 195–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olsher, David
2004 Talk and gesture: The embodied completion of sequential actions in spoken interaction. In Second Language Conversations, Rod Gardner & Johannes Wagner (eds), 221–245. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pajusalu, Renate
1997 Is there an article in (spoken) Estonian? In Estonian Typological Studies II [Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele õppetooli toimetised 8], Mati Erelt (ed.), 146–177. Tartu: Tartu ülikooli kirjastus.Google Scholar
2005 Anaphoric pronouns in spoken Estonian. Crossing the paradigms. In Minimal Reference. The Use of Pronouns in Finnish and Estonian Discourse [Studia Fennica Linguistica 12], Ritva Laury (ed.), 107–134. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas
1997 Describing Morphosyntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail
1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slama-Cazacu, Tatiana
1976 Nonverbal components in message sequence: Mixed syntax. In Language and Man: Anthropological Issues, William Charles McCormack & Stephen Wurm (eds), 217–227. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Sidnell, Jack
2005 Multi-modal interaction. Semiotica 156: 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen & Jordan, J. Scott
(eds) 2009 Projection and anticipation in embodied communication. Discourse Processes 46: 93–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, Peter
1996 A rehearsal of a Beethoven passage: An analysis of correction talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(3): 247–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Hsu, Hui-Chieh, Geert Brône & Kurt Feyaerts
2021. When Gesture “Takes Over”: Speech-Embedded Nonverbal Depictions in Multimodal Interaction. Frontiers in Psychology 11 Crossref logo
Tao, Hongyin
2020.  In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 128], ► pp. 272 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.