1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Nota Bene
  4. Volume 2, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2 Number 1
  • ISSN 2950-189X
  • E-ISSN: 2950-1881
EPUB
PDF

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.

© 2025 The Author(s)
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00028.sch
2025-09-26
2026-07-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/nb.00028.sch
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nb.00028.sch.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00028.sch&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert & Arne Zeschel
    2010 Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora5,1. 1–27. 10.3366/cor.2010.0001
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Birkner, Karin
    2008 Relativ(satz)konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Syntaktische, prosodische, semantische und pragmatische Aspekte. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110210750
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110210750 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boas, Hans C., Jaakko Leino & Benjamin Lyngfelt
    2024 Constructionist views on Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames16,2. 169–190. 10.1075/cf.24005.boa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.24005.boa [Google Scholar]
  4. Bücker, Jörg
    2012 Sprachhandeln und Sprachwissen. Grammatische Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von Interaktion und Kognition. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110282719
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110282719 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cappelle, Bert
    2006 Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions11. 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2024 Can Construction Grammar Be Proven Wrong?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009343213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009343213 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cienki, Alan
    2017 Utterance Construction Grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of constructions. Linguistics Vanguard3,s1. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0048
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0048 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohn, Neil & Joost Schilperoord
    2024 A Multimodal Language Faculty. A cognitive framework for human communication. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350404861
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350404861 [Google Scholar]
  9. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2006 Construction Grammar — Eine Grammatik für die Interaktion?InArnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion, 43–65. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 2011 Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktionale Linguistik. Affinitäten, Komplementaritäten und Diskrepanzen. InAlexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze, 205–238. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Divjak, Dagmar
    2019 Frequency in Language. Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316084410
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084410 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dressler, Wolfgang Ulrich, Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang Ullrich Wurzel
    1987 Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.10 [Google Scholar]
  13. Droste, Pepe & Susanne Günthner
    2020 “das mAchst du bestimmt AUCH du;”: Zum Zusammenspiel syntaktischer, prosodischer und sequenzieller Aspekte syntaktisch desintegrierter du-Formate. InWolfgang Imo & Jens Philipp Lanwer (eds.), Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik, 75–109. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110637489‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110637489-003 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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 Acquisition24,2. 143–188. 10.1017/S0272263102002024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2013 Construction Grammar and second language acquisition. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 365–378. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fricke, Ellen
    2012 Grammatik multimodal: Wie Wörter und Gesten zusammenwirken. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218893
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218893 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, Adele Eva
    2006 Constructions at Work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2019 Explain Me This. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gries, Stefan Thomas
    2003 Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics11. 1–27. 10.1075/arcl.1.02gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.1.02gri [Google Scholar]
  20. 2016 Variationist Analysis. Variability due to random effects and autocorrelation. InPaul Baker & Jesse A. Egbert (eds.), Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus Linguistic Research, 108–123. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 2022 On, or against?, (just) frequency. InHans C. Boas, (ed.), Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and teaching (with) constructions, 47–71. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110746723‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110746723-002 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2024 Frequency, Dispersion, Association, and Keyness. Revising and tupleizing corpus-linguistic measures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.115
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.115 [Google Scholar]
  23. Günthner, Susanne & Wolfgang Imo
    (eds.) 2006 Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894158
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894158 [Google Scholar]
  24. Harrison, Simon Mark
    2009 Grammar, gesture, and cognition. The case of negation in English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux 3.
  25. Hilpert, Martin
    2021 Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004446793
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446793 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2025 Frequency. Psychological and methodological considerations. InMirjam Fried & Kiki Nikiforidou (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, 149–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.007 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2017 Multimodal constructs — multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard3,s1. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0042
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0042 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2021 Multimodal Construction Grammar: From multimodal constructs to multimodal constructions. InWen Xu & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 78–92. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑6
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-6 [Google Scholar]
  29. Imo, Wolfgang
    2007a Construction Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung. Konstruktionen mit zehn matrixsatzfähigen Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110975895
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110975895 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2007b Der Zwang zur Kategorienbildung: Probleme der Anwendung der Construction Grammar bei der Analyse gesprochener Sprache. Gesprächsforschung81. 22–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Imo, Wolfgang & Jens Philipp Lanwer
    (eds.) 2020 Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110637489
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110637489 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kendon, Adam
    2002 Some uses of the head shake. Gesture2,2. 147–182. 10.1075/gest.2.2.03ken
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.2.2.03ken [Google Scholar]
  33. 2004 Gesture. Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kuryu, Daiya
    2025 Crossmodal collostructional analysis of English [ADV and ADV] constructions: Multimodal constructions or crossmodal collostructions?Language and Cognition17,e39. 1–28. 10.1017/langcog.2025.8
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2025.8 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ladewig, Silva
    2014 Recurrent gestures. InCornelia Müller (eds.): Body — Language — Communication: An international handbook on Multimodality in human interaction, Volume 2, 1558–1574. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Langacker, Ronald Wayne
    1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2001 Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics12,2. 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lanwer, Jens Philipp
    2018 Grammatikalität und Rekurrenz. Zur Rolle statistischer Verfahren im Rahmen einer rekonstruktiven Linguistik. InGeorg Albert & Sabine Diao-Klaeger (eds.), Mündlicher Sprachgebrauch. Zwischen Normorientierung und pragmatischen Spielräumen, 231–253. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lehmann, Claudia
    2024 What makes a multimodal construction? Evidence for a prosodic mode in spoken English. Frontiers in Communication91,1338844. 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1338844
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1338844 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2025 Towards a functional perspective on multimodal constructions: Evidence from requesting and stance-related Tell me about it. InKiki Nikiforidou & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Multimodal Communication from a Construction Grammar Perspective, 220–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.38.07leh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.38.07leh [Google Scholar]
  41. Lemmens, Maarten
    2019 In defense of frequency generalizations and usage-based linguistics. An answer to Frederick Newmeyer’s ‘Conversational corpora: when big is beautiful’. CogniTextes191. 10.4000/cognitextes.1616
     https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.1616 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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 Studies47,3–4. 480–525.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Masini, Francesca, Claudia Roberta Combei & Roberta Cicchirillo
    2025 The prosody of list constructions. InKiki Nikiforidou & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Multimodal Communication from a Construction Grammar Perspective, 116–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.38.04mas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.38.04mas [Google Scholar]
  44. McNeill, David
    1992 Hand and Mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Meer, Dorothee
    2012 ‚dAs is ja völliger BLÖDsinn;‘ — Konstruktionen der gesprochenen Sprache mit der Abtönungspartikel ja. InBjorn Rothstein (ed.), Nicht-flektierende Wortarten, 89–116. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110276619.89
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110276619.89 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ningelgen, Jana & Peter Auer
    2017 Is there a multimodal construction based on non-deictic so in German?Linguistics Vanguard3,s1. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0051
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0051 [Google Scholar]
  47. Noël, Dirk
    2005 The productivity of a ‘source of information’ construction: Or, where grammaticalization theory and construction grammar meet. (talk atthe workshop “From ideational to interpersonal: Perspectives from grammaticalization”, Leuven, 10.02.2015).
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Perek, Florent
    2012 Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics23,3. 601–635. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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.
  50. Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Freek Van de Velde & Stefan Grondelaers
    2021 Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics32,3. 487–528. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0039
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0039 [Google Scholar]
  51. Reineke, Silke
    2016 Wissenszuschreibungen in der Interaktion: Eine gesprächsanalytische Untersuchung impliziter und expliziter Formen der Zuschreibung von Wissen. Heidelberg: Winter. 10.33675/978‑3‑8253‑7580‑5
     https://doi.org/10.33675/978-3-8253-7580-5 [Google Scholar]
  52. Rinas, Karsten
    2007 Bekanntheit? Begründung? Einigkeit? Zur semantischen Analyse der Abtönungspartikel ja. Deutsch als Fremdsprache44,4. 205–211.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Robinson, Jeffrey D.
    2007 The role of numbers and statistics within Conversation Analysis. Communication Methods and Measures1,1. 65–75. 10.1080/19312450709336663
     https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336663 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sambre, Paul & Geert Brône
    2013 Cut and break. The multimodal expression of instrumentality and causality. (talk atMapping Multimodal Dialogue, RWTH Aachen, 22.11.2013).
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Schafroth, Elmar
    2023 Familienähnlichkeiten und Konstruktionsfamilien: Begriffsbestimmungen und Analysen. InFabio Mollica & Sören Stumpf (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IX. Konstruktionsfamilien im Deutschen, 27–53. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Schönherr, Beatrix
    1993 Prosodische und nonverbale Signale für Parenthesen. “Parasyntax” in Fernsehdiskussionen. Deutsche Sprache211. 223–243.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 1997 Syntax — Prosodie — nonverbale Kommunikation. Empirische Untersuchungen zur Interaktion sprachlicher und parasprachlicher Ausdrucksmittel im Gespräch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110926156
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926156 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2023 Multimodale Kontextualisierung in Drameninszenierungen. Eine interaktionslinguistische Untersuchung am Beispiel von Konnektoren und Reformulierungen. Unpublished habilitation thesis, Universität Innsbruck.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Schoonjans, Steven
    2017 Multimodal Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues. Linguistics Vanguard3,s1. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0050
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0050 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2018 Modalpartikeln als multimodale Konstruktionen. Eine korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110566260
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110566260 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2019 Modal particle meanings: New insights from gesture research. Review of Cognitive Linguistics17,2. 303–330. 10.1075/rcl.00037.sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00037.sch [Google Scholar]
  62. Selting, Margret,
    2009 Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung101. 353–402.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Thomas Gries
    2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8,2. 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  64. Stetter, Christian
    2005 System und Performanz. Symboltheoretische Grundlagen von Medientheorie und Sprachwissenschaft. Weilerswist: Velbrück
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Stumpf, Sören & Fabio Mollica
    2023 Konstruktionsfamilien im Deutschen: Begriffsverständnis, Forschungsstand und Konzeption des Bandes. InFabio Mollica & Sören Stumpf (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IX. Konstruktionsfamilien im Deutschen, 9–25. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Stutz, Lena
    2024 Wo ein Sprichwort ist, ist auch ein Muster: Korpusbasierte Studien zur Produktivität und Schematizität deutscher Sprichwortmuster. Linguistische Berichte2791. 249–309. 10.46771/9783967693997_1
     https://doi.org/10.46771/9783967693997_1 [Google Scholar]
  67. Taylor, John R.
    2019 Prototype effects in grammar. In: Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Key Topics, 127–147. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110626438‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626438-007 [Google Scholar]
  68. Thurmair, Maria
    1989 Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111354569
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354569 [Google Scholar]
  69. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
    2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Uhrig, Peter
    2022 Hand gestures with verbs of throwing: Collostructions, style and metaphor. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association101. 99–120. 10.1515/gcla‑2022‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2022-0006 [Google Scholar]
  71. Ungerer, Tobias
    2023 A gradient notion of constructionhood. Constructions151. 10.24338/cons‑543
     https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-543 [Google Scholar]
  72. Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
    2023 Constructionist Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009308717
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009308717 [Google Scholar]
  73. Van Trijp, Remi
    2024 Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames16,2. 311–345. 10.1075/cf.23013.van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23013.van [Google Scholar]
  74. Ziem, Alexander
    2017 Do we really need a Multimodal Construction Grammar?Linguistics Vanguard3,s1. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0095
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0095 [Google Scholar]
  75. Ziem, Alexander & Alexander Lasch
    2011 Von der geschriebenen zur gesprochenen Sprache: Quo vadis Konstruktionsgrammatik?InAlexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze, 275–281. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 2013 Konstruktionsgrammatik. Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110295641
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295641 [Google Scholar]
  77. Zima, Elisabeth
    2014a English multimodal motion constructions. Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium81. 14–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 2014b Gibt es multimodale Konstruktionen? Eine Studie zu [V(motion) in circles] und [all the way from X PREP Y]. Gesprächsforschung151. 1–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 2025 Construction Grammar and gesture. InMirjam Fried & Kiki Nikiforidou (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, 384–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.016
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.016 [Google Scholar]
  80. Zima, Elisabeth & Geert Brône
    2011 Ad-hoc-Konstruktionen in der Interaktion: eine korpusbasierte Studie dialogischer Resonanzerzeugung. InAlexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze, 255–273. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Zlatev, Jordan
    2019 Mimesis theory, learning, and polysemiotic communication. InMichael A. Peters (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑287‑532‑7_672‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_672-1 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00028.sch
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Construction Grammar; frequency; gesture; multimodality; prosody

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