1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Gesture
  4. Volume 20, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1568-1475
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9773
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The research proposed in this paper focuses on pragmatic interlinks between discourse markers and non-verbal behavior. Although non-verbal behavior is recognized to add non-redundant information and social interaction is not merely recognized as the transmission of words and sentences, the evidence regarding grammatical/linguistic interlinks between verbal and non-verbal concepts are vague and limited to restricted domains. This is even more evident when non-verbal behavior acts in the foreground but contributes to the structure and organization of the discourse. This research focuses on investigating the multimodal nature of discourse markers by observing their linguistic and paralinguistic properties in informal discourse. We perform a quantitative analysis with case studies for representative cases. The results show that discourse markers and background non-verbal behavior tend to follow a similar functionality in interaction. Therefore, by examining them together, one gains more insight into their true intent despite the high multifunctionality of both non-verbal behavior and DMs.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/gest.20018.mla
2021-11-22
2024-10-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/gest.20018.mla
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K.
    (2002) English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allwood, J.
    (2014) A framework for studying human multimodal communication. InMatej Rojc & Nick Campbell (Eds.), Coverbal synchrony in human-machine interaction (pp.17–39). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Allwood, J., Ahlsén, E., Lund, J., & Sundqvist, J.
    (2005) Multimodality in own communication management. InProceedings from the Second Nordic Conference on Multimodal Communication (pp.1–20). Göteborg: Göteborg University.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnold, L.
    (2012) Dialogic embodied action: Using gesture to organize sequence and participation in instructional interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45 (3), 269–296. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699256
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699256 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baiat, G. E., Coler, M., Pullen, M., Tienkouw, S., & Hunyadi, L.
    (2013, December). Multimodal analysis of “well” as a discourse marker in conversation: A pilot study. In2013 IEEE 4th International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom) (pp.283–288). doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/CogInfoCom.2013.6719167. 10.1109/CogInfoCom.2013.6719257
     https://doi.org/10.1109/CogInfoCom.2013.6719257 [Google Scholar]
  6. Birdwhistell, R. L.
    (2010) Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bonsignori, V. & Camiciottoli, B. C.
    (Eds.) (2017) Multimodality across communicative settings, discourse domains and genres. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cassell, J.
    (2001) Embodied conversational agents: representation and intelligence in user interfaces. AI magazine, 22 (4), 67.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chui, K., Lee, C. Y., Yeh, K., & Chao, P. C.
    (2018) Semantic processing of self-adaptors, emblems, and iconic gestures: An ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 47, 105–122. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.04.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cienki, A. & Müller, C.
    (Eds.) (2008) Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.3 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coker, D. A. & Burgoon, J.
    (1987) The nature of conversational involvement and nonverbal encoding patterns. Human Communication Research, 13 (4), 463–494. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.1987.tb00115.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00115.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Cooperrider, K.
    (2017) Foreground gesture, background gesture. Gesture, 16 (2), 176–202. 10.1075/gest.16.2.02coo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.2.02coo [Google Scholar]
  13. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2018) Finding a place for body movement in grammar. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51 (1), 22–25. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413888
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413888 [Google Scholar]
  14. Crible, L.
    (2014) Identifying and describing discourse markers in spoken corpora: Annotation protocol v.8. Technical report. Louvain: Université catholique de Louvain.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Crible, L. & Pascual, E.
    (2019) Combinations of discourse markers with repairs and repetitions in English, French and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 54–67. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N.
    (1972) The dependability of behavioural measurement: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Degand, L., Cornillie, B., & Pietrandrea, P.
    (2013) (Eds.). Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.234
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dobrovoljc, K.
    (2017) Multi-word discourse markers and their corpus-driven identification: The case of MWDM extraction from the reference corpus of spoken Slovene. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22 (4), 551–582. 10.1075/ijcl.16127.dob
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16127.dob [Google Scholar]
  19. Ekman, P. & Friesen, W.
    (1971) Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17 (2), 124–129. 10.1037/h0030377
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030377 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fischer, K.
    (2013) Discourse markers. InCaroll Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (Vol. 3, 1743–1748). Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley & Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fitzpatrick, E.
    (Ed.) (2007) Corpus linguistics beyond the word: Corpus research from phrase to discourse. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401203845
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203845 [Google Scholar]
  22. Guaitella, I., Santi, S., Lagrue, B., & Cavé, C.
    (2009) Are eyebrow movements linked to voice variations and turn-taking in dialogue? An experimental investigation. Language and Speech, 52 (2/3), 207–222. 10.1177/0023830909103167
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103167 [Google Scholar]
  23. Harrison, S., Adolphs, S., Dowens, M. G., Du, P., & Littlemore, J.
    (2018) All hands on deck. Negotiation over gesture forms in collaborative discourse. Lingua, 207, 1–22. 10.1016/j.lingua.2018.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hyland, K.
    (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London & New York: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Keevallik, L.
    (2018) What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar?Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51 (1), 1–21. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413887
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413887 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kendon, A.
    (2014) Semiotic diversity in utterance production and the concept of ‘language’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B 369 (1651), 20130293. doi:  10.1098/rstb.2013.0293
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0293 [Google Scholar]
  27. Knight, D.
    (2011) Multimodality and active listenership: A corpus approach. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kok, K. I. & Cienki, A.
    (2016) Cognitive grammar and gesture: Points of convergence, advances and challenges. Cognitive Linguistics, 27 (1), 67–100. 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0087
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0087 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kushch, O., Igualada, A., & Prieto, P.
    (2018) Prominence in speech and gesture favour second language novel word learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33 (8), 992–1004. 10.1080/23273798.2018.1435894
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1435894 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lenker, U.
    (2018) ‘There’s an issue there…’: Signalling functions of discourse-deictic there in the history of English. Language Sciences, 68, 94–105. 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2017.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lester, J. C., Voerman, J. L., Towns, S. G., & Callaway, C. B.
    (1999) Deictic believability: Coordinated gesture, locomotion, and speech in lifelike pedagogical agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13 (4/5), 383–414. 10.1080/088395199117324
     https://doi.org/10.1080/088395199117324 [Google Scholar]
  32. Llanes-Coromina, J., Vilà-Giménez, I., Kushch, O., Borras-Comes, J., & Prieto, P.
    (2018) Beat gestures help preschoolers recall and comprehend discourse information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 172, 168–188. 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.02.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lopes, A. C. M.
    (2016) Discourse markers. InL. Wetzels, S. Menuzzi, & J. Costa (Eds.), The handbook of Portuguese linguistics. New York: Wiley. 10.1002/9781118791844.ch24
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118791844.ch24 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lopez-Ozieblo, R. & McNeill, D.
    (2017) Exchange on gesture-speech unity: What it is, where it came from. InR. Breckinridge Church, M. W. Alibali, & S. D. Kelly (Eds.), Why gesture? How the hands function in speaking, thinking and communicating (pp.103–125). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.7.06lop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.7.06lop [Google Scholar]
  35. Maricchiolo, F., Gnisci, A., & Bonaiuto, M.
    (2012) Coding hand gestures: A reliable taxonomy and a multi-media support. InAnna Esposito (Eds.), Cognitive behavioural systems (pp.405–416). Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑34584‑5_36
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34584-5_36 [Google Scholar]
  36. Maschler, Y. & Schiffrin, D.
    (2015) Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. InD. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.189–221). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. McCarthy, M.
    (2003) Talking back: “Small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36 (1), 33–63. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3 [Google Scholar]
  38. McHugh, M. L.
    (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22 (3), 276–282. 10.11613/BM.2012.031
     https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031 [Google Scholar]
  39. McNeill, D.
    (2008) Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. McNeill, D., Cassell, J., & Levy, E. T.
    (1993) Abstract deixis. Semiotica, 95 (1/2), 5–20. 10.1515/semi.1993.95.1‑2.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1993.95.1-2.5 [Google Scholar]
  41. McNeill, D., Levy, E., & Duncan, S. D.
    (2015) Gesture in discourse. InD. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.262–289). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Melinger, A. & Levelt, W. J.
    (2004) Gesture and the communicative intention of the speaker. Gesture, 4 (2), 119–141. 10.1075/gest.4.2.02mel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.4.2.02mel [Google Scholar]
  43. Mlakar, I., Verdonik, D., Majhenič, S., & Rojc, M.
    (2019) Towards pragmatic understanding of conversational intent: A multimodal annotation approach to multiparty informal interaction – The EVA Corpus. In: International Conference on Statistical Language and Speech Processing. Proceedings (pp.19–30). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑31372‑2_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31372-2_2 [Google Scholar]
  44. Nevile, M.
    (2015) The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48 (2), 121–151. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1025499
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1025499 [Google Scholar]
  45. Neville, D. O.
    (2015) The story in the mind: The effect of 3D gameplay on the structuring of written L2 narratives. ReCALL, 27 (1), 21–37. 10.1017/S0958344014000160
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000160 [Google Scholar]
  46. Nikolaeva, Y.
    (2014) Speech-accompanying gestures in Russian: functions and verbal context. InProceedings of the Third Workshop on Vision and Language (pp.82–86). Dublin: Dublin City University & Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/v1/W14‑5412
     https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-5412 [Google Scholar]
  47. Paggio, P. & Navarretta, C.
    (2017) The Danish NOMCO corpus: multimodal interaction in first acquaintance conversations. Language Resources and Evaluation, 51 (2), 463–494. 10.1007/s10579‑016‑9371‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-016-9371-6 [Google Scholar]
  48. Peirce, C. S.
    (1965) Collected papers, Vol.5. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Redeker, G.
    (1990) Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (3), 367–381. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90095‑U
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90095-U [Google Scholar]
  50. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schlenker, P.
    (2018) Iconic pragmatics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 36 (3), 877–936. 10.1007/s11049‑017‑9392‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9392-x [Google Scholar]
  52. Schourup, L.
    (1999) Discourse markers. Lingua, 107 (3), 227–265. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)90026‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  53. Trujillo, J. P., Simanova, I., Bekkering, H., & Özyürek, A.
    (2018) Communicative intent modulates production and comprehension of actions and gestures: A Kinect study. Cognition, 180, 38–51. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  54. Verdonik, D.
    (2007) Upravljanje pogovora kot metadiskurzna funkcija. Metabesedilnost v uporabnem jezikoslovju. Jezik in slovstvo, 3 (4), 53–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Verdonik, D., Rojc, M., & Stabej, M.
    (2007) Annotating discourse markers in spontaneous speech corpora on an example for the Slovenian language. Language Resources and Evaluation, 41 (2), 147–180. 10.1007/s10579‑007‑9035‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-007-9035-7 [Google Scholar]
  56. Verdonik, D., Žgank, A., & Pisanski Peterlin, A.
    (2008) The impact of context on discourse marker use in two conversational genres. Discourse Studies, 10 (6), 759–775. 10.1177/1461445608096572
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608096572 [Google Scholar]
  57. Vigliocco, G., Perniss, P., & Vinson, D.
    (2014) Language as a multimodal phenomenon: implications for language learning, processing and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B 369 (1651), 20130292.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.20018.mla
Loading
Discourse markers in relation tonon-verbal behavior
Gesture 20, 103 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.20018.mla
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.20018.mla
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.20018.mla
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): metadiscourse; multimodal analysis; multimodal discourse; non-verbal behavior; social interaction

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error