Considering the Nature of Multimodal Language from a Crosslinguistic Perspective.

Asli Özyürek

doi:10.5334/joc.165

Abstract

Language in its primary face-to-face context is multimodal (e.g., Holler and Levinson, 2019; Perniss, 2018). Thus, understanding how expressions in the vocal and visual modalities together contribute to our notions of language structure, use, processing, and transmission (i.e., acquisition, evolution, emergence) in different languages and cultures should be a fundamental goal of language sciences. This requires a new framework of language that brings together how arbitrary and non-arbitrary and motivated semiotic resources of language relate to each other. Current commentary evaluates such a proposal by Murgiano et al (2021) from a crosslinguistic perspective taking variation as well as systematicity in multimodal utterances into account.

Highlights

Language in its primary face-to-face context is multimodal (e.g., Holler and Levinson, 2019; Perniss, 2018)
Understanding how expressions in vocal and in the visual modality contribute to our notions of language structure, use, processing, and its transmission in different languages and cultures should be a fundamental goal of language sciences
Murgiano et al.’s (2020) paper provides an important step in this direction compiling comprehensive evidence and promoting a “language as situated view” as a way to study language from a multimodal perspective and in face-to-face contextual uses. The paper opposes this to a “language as system” view defined at the population level and characterized by the use of “arbitrary symbols governed by rules”. In this commentary I will argue that, even though I agree with the general premises of “language as situated view”, such multimodal contextual uses mentioned in the paper can be systematic and governed by the specific typological characteristics of different languages as well as by culturally defined and grounded communicative conventions

Summary

Introduction

Language in its primary face-to-face context is multimodal (e.g., Holler and Levinson, 2019; Perniss, 2018). In this commentary I will argue that, even though I agree with the general premises of “language as situated view”, such multimodal contextual uses mentioned in the paper can be systematic and governed by the specific typological characteristics of different languages as well as by culturally defined and grounded communicative conventions.

Results

Conclusion