Search

This article focuses on the relationship between gaze and recipient feedback in triadic storytelling activities. Our starting point to investigate this relationship is an article by Bavelas et al. (2002), who report a statistically significant interaction between feedback and so-called gaze windows in dyadic storytelling activities. The pattern they found involves three interdependent phases: a narrator shifts gaze to a recipient to elicit feedback (phase 1), narrator and recipient are mutually gazing at each other while the recipient gives feedback (phase 2), and the narrator shifts gaze away from the recipient (phase 3). In our triadic data, where gaze was captured by mobile eye tracking glasses, gaze is equally used to elicit feedback. However, feedback is most often not produced during mutual gaze between narrators and recipients. The gaze window pattern is instantiated in only roughly one third of the feedback tokens in our corpus. We illustrate coexisting gaze patterns and discuss reasons why mutual gaze between narrator and feedback-giving recipient is less prevalent in our data.

This paper deals with multimodal displays of non-affiliative stances and assessments in face-to- face triadic storytelling activities. Building on conversational analytical research that has highlighted the co-constructed nature of storytelling activities and the intersubjective nature of stance-taking, this paper takes a multimodal perspective and focusses on how interactants use language, prosody, gaze, and gestures to express stances that are non-affiliative to different degrees. The paper addresses two issues: We first concentrate on the ways that disaffiliative assessments and stances are communicated as multimodal packages before zooming in on the ways that storytellers and recipients deal with displays of disaffiliation. This includes both verbal and nonverbal strategies to highlight disaffiliation and interactional work to jointly mitigate it. By its focus on multimodal stance-taking in storytelling activities, the paper ties in with both the recently growing interest in the multimodal nature of stance-taking as well as recent pleas to revisit interactional storytelling from a multimodal perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Usage-based theories hold that the sole resource for language users’ linguistic systems is language use (Barlow & Kemmer, 2000; Langacker, 1988; Tomasello, 1999, 2003). Researchers working in the usage-based paradigm, which is often equated with cognitive-functional linguistics (e.g., Ibbotson, 2013, Tomasello, 2003), seem to widely agree that the primary setting for language use is interaction, with spontaneous face-to-face interaction playing a primordial role (e.g., Bybee, 2010; Clark, 1996; Geeraerts & Cuyckens, 2007; Langacker, 2008; Oakley & Hougaard, 2008; Zlatev, 2014). It should, then, follow that usage-based models of language are not only compatible with evidence from communication research but also that they are intrinsically grounded in authentic, multi-party language use in all its diversity and complexities. This should be a logical consequence, as a usage-based understanding of language processing and human sense-making cannot be separated from the study of interaction. However, the overwhelming majority of the literature in Cognitive Linguistics (CL) does not deal with the analysis of dialogic data or with issues of interactional conceptualization. It is our firm belief that this is at odds with the interactional foundation of the usage-based hypothesis. Furthermore, we are convinced that an ‘interactional turn’ is not only essential to the credibility and further development of Cognitive Linguistics as a theory of language and cognition as such. Rather, CL-inspired perspectives on interactional language use may provide insights that other, non-cognitive approaches to discourse and interaction are bound to overlook. To that aim, this special issue brings together four contributions that involve the analysis of interactional discourse phenomena by drawing on tools and methods from the broad field of Cognitive Linguistics. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Recent developments in grammatical theory seem to invite an integration of grammar and interaction; nevertheless, there are reservations on both sides. While some of these reservations can be traced to misconceptions, others are deeply rooted in the theoretical premises of each approach. The differences are, however, not very well understood; especially theoretical premises regarding the role of cognition in language use have been hindering a fruitful collaboration. Reinterpreting the results of Conversation Analysis (CA; cf. Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Sacks, 1992) in terms of Construction Grammar (Goldberg, 1995, 2006; Croft, 2001, Langacker, 2008) recasts the discursive practices identified in CA in terms of participants’ cognitive construals of the communicative situation, making the speaking subjects apparent in their strategies and conceptualizations of the interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Interactive language use inherently involves a process of coordination, which often leads to matching behaviour between interlocutors in different semiotic channels. We study this process of interactive alignment from a multimodal perspective: using data from head-mounted eye-trackers in a corpus of face-to-face conversations, we measure which effect gaze fixations by speakers (on their own gestures, condition 1) and fixations by interlocutors (on the gestures by those speakers, condition 2) have on subsequent gesture production by those interlocutors. The results show there is a significant effect of interlocutor gaze (condition 2), but not of speaker gaze (condition 1) on the amount of gestural alignment, with an interaction between the conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Any approach to interaction is confronted with the dilemma of reconciling the empirical fact that meaning is locally and interactionally managed, as shown by conversation analysis, with the fact that conversations are subject to genres that impose conventionalized expectations for allowable contributions and inferences, as advocated by the ethnography of communication. This theoretical paper attempts to overcome this challenge by integrating Langacker’s current-discourse-space model with Barsalou’s dynamic model of situated conceptualization. With reference to these frameworks, the paper sketches a grounded socio-cognitive model of meaning construction in context that combines the situated interactional negotiation of meaning with the discursive knowledge that underlies speech genres in the form of genre-simulators. To substantiate and illustrate the theoretical considerations, the paper draws on two extracts from spoken tourist-information transactions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

As an explicitly usage-based model of language structure (Barlow & Kemmer, 2000), cognitive grammar draws on the notion of ‘usage events’ of language as the starting point from which linguistic units are schematized by language users. To be true to this claim for spoken languages, phenomena such as non-lexical sounds, intonation patterns, and certain uses of gesture should be taken into account to the degree to which they constitute the phonological pole of signs, paired in entrenched ways with conceptual content. Following through on this view of usage events also means realizing the gradable nature of signs. In addition, taking linguistic meaning as consisting of not only conceptual content but also a particular way of construing that content (Langacker, 2008, p. 43), we find that the forms of expression mentioned above play a prominent role in highlighting the ways in which speakers construe what they are talking about, in terms of different degrees of specificity, focusing, prominence, and perspective. Viewed in this way, usage events of spoken language are quite different in nature from those of written language, a point which highlights the need for differentiated accounts of the grammar of these two forms of expression taken by many languages. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The back pages of the journals "Applied Psycholinguistics" and "Bilingualism: Language and Cognition" are presented.

The cover page of the journal "Language and Cognition" is presented, along with some information on the journal's editorial staff.

A correction to the article "Epistemic Inclination and Factualization: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study on the Semantic Gradience of Factuality" that was published in a November 2014 issue is presented.

A correction to the article "Epistemic Inclination and Factualization: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study on the Semantic Gradience of Factuality" that was published in a November 2014 issue is presented.