Multimodal constructions in children

Abstract

Swedish children’s use of the headshake from 18 to 30 months shows a developmental progression from rote-learned and formulaic coordination with speech to increasingly more flexible and productive coordination with speech. To deal with these observations, I make use of the concept ofmultimodal constructions, to extend usage-based approaches to language learning and construction grammar by inclusion of the kinetic domain. These ideas have consequences for the (meta‑)theoretical question of whether gesture can be said to be part of language or not. I suggest thatsomespeech-coordinated gestures, including the headshake, can be considered part of language, also in the traditional sense of language as a conventionalized system.

Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages

“…They attribute this to children's still underdeveloped ability to combine this demonstrative pronoun in speech with conversational management of visual attention required by appropriate use of şu. Likewise, work on first language acquisition of multimodal constructions in hearing children involving negation suggests that children take time to develop adult-like coordination of headshake with spoken utterances of negation (Andrén 2014). Given the complexity of acquisition of speech along with deictic co-speech gestures, we see some evidence of parallels here with the acquisition of indicating verbs in sign languages: children appear to pass through similar developmental stages in the acquisition of co-speech pointing and verb directionality, with the use of directionality with present referents, for example, often reported to precede its use with absent referents (Chen Pichler 2012).…”

A corpus-based study of the role of headshaking in negation in Auslan (Australian Sign Language): Implications for signed language typology

“…Headshakes also frequently appear in non-negated clauses: so frequently, in fact, that this is overwhelmingly the most common construction in which headshakes are found. Headshakes in manually negated clauses thus appear to be like the majority of headshakes in non-negated clauses in the corpus which, in turn, are like headshaking in the face-to-face language of comparable spoken language using communities (cf Kendon 2002;Harrison 2009Harrison , 2010Andrén 2014). Finally, position and spreading behaviour of headshakes during manually negated clauses appears related to pragmatic and semantic factors rather than language-specific syntactic constraints.…”

“…In SLs, on the other hand, the headshake is said to be able to change the polarity of the clause: all things being equal, i.e. none of the uses (i)-(viii) from Second, the spreading of headshakes within the negated clause is linguistically constrained in SLs, whereas in spoken languages HS placement is said to be variable and strongly associated to particular lexical items (Andrén 2014). Take a possible invented SL utterance superficially like the type (iii) English example in 4 See Appendix 1 for relevant SL glossing and transcription conventions used in this paper.…”

“…consider them in their face-to-face mode when comparing them to SLs (Johnston 2013b). For instance, in a study on the acquisition of spoken Swedish, Andrén (2014) demonstrates how headshaking is acquired with particular negative words and phrases to form tightly bound symbolic units. Likewise, in Auslan, there are many NEGrelated signs that attract a headshake, and some of these more than others, e.g.…”

Pointing in gesture and sign

“…Similarly, in multiparty conversations such as meetings, people point as a way of tacitly citing others present (Bavelas et al 1992). Pointing to the addressee is also used, not to show agreement, but to mock (Sherzer 1973) or scold (Andrén 2014). Generally, such social functions of pointing have not been as widely examined as the more prototypical referential uses.…”