Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Spanish
Edited by Inga Hennecke and Evelyn Wiesinger
[Constructional Approaches to Language 34] 2023
► pp. 340–374

Chapter 13
What can collaboratively produced lists tell us about constructions?

A multimodal analysis of co-constructed enumeration practices in spoken Spanish

 | University of Freiburg
 | University of Basel
 | University of Heidelberg
Based on the investigation of the joint production of lists in spoken Spanish, this contribution advocates for a stronger theoretical consideration of sequential and embodied aspects as part of constructional knowledge in CxG. By analyzing video recorded conversations, we examine how interlocutors co-construct lists in real-time. Lists conventionally consist of a three-component sequence – onset, enumeration (body), and coda. Our data shows that interactants orient to these components beyond morphosyntactic features and deploy shared knowledge of semanto-syntactic, sequential, turn-constructional, prosodic, and bodily features. By closely monitoring and coordination each other’s situated multimodal resources, interactants recognize emergent action spaces that allow them to co-construct lists smoothly at different sequential positions and thereby accomplish a variety of social actions. We conclude that the highly emergent yet robust character of co-constructed lists provides a powerful example for how interactional creativity leads to constructional flexibility, yet warrants pattern stability at the same time.
Keywords: construction grammar, list construction, co-construction, shared knowledge, multimodal practice, interactional linguistics, enumeration, sedimentation, temporal unfolding
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Prior research
    • 2.1An interactional approach to constructions
    • 2.2Grammar and co-constructions
    • 2.3Lists in interaction
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Collaboration during ONSET
      • 4.1.1Example 2: ‘barbecue’ (sbuh201701-0555)
      • 4.1.2Example 3: ‘participants’ (shab201801-0630)
    • 4.2Collaboratively constructed list body
      • 4.2.1Example 4: ‘politics’ (ssot201701-1935)
      • 4.2.2Example 5: ‘toothache’ (ssot201702-0635)
      • 4.2.3Example 6: ‘refreshment’ (ssot201701-1702)
      • 4.2.4Example 7: ‘a great team’ (sbor201801-0512)
    • 4.3Collaboration at Coda – Example 8: ‘football’ (sbor201801-0938)
    • 4.4Gestalt latency and collaboration after the coda – Example 9 ‘(class) plannings’ (ssot201701-0426)
  • 5.Complex list emergence in joint authorship
    • Example 10: ‘German teacher’ (swyc201701-1742)
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.34.13dre
References (78)
References
Alcón, D., Satti, L. I., & Muz, D. (in prep.). Visualizing emergent objects. A new methodological workflow for multimodal analysis.
Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36.Google Scholar
(2006). Construction Grammar meets Conversation: Einige Überlegungen am Beispiel von ‘so’-Konstruktionen. In S. Günthner, & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp. 291–314). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Why are increments such elusive objects? An afterthought. Pragmatics, 17(4), 647–658.Google Scholar
(2014). The temporality of language in interaction: projection and latency. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 54, 1–25.Google Scholar
Auer, P., Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Müller F. (1999). Language in time: the rhythm and tempo of spoken interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (2007). Multiple Retractions in Spoken French and Spoken German – A Contrastive Study of Oral Performance Styles. Cahiers de Praxématique, 48, 57–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barroto, A., & Mauri, C. (2018). Constructing lists to construct categories. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 95–134.Google Scholar
Battersby, S. A., & Healey, P. G. T. (2009). The interactional geometry of a three-way conversation. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, 31, 785–790.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 566–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., & Sambre, P. (2015). Gestural specification and completion in multimodal construction grammar: A case study of instrumental causal actions involving Cut and Break. ICLC International Cognitive Linguistics Conference.Google Scholar
Brône, G., & Zima, E. (2014). Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2016). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dankel, P., & Satti, I. (2019). Multimodale Listen. Form und Funktion körperlicher Ressourcen in Aufzählungen in französischen, spanischen und italienischen Interaktionen. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 70(1), 58–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dankel, P., & Soto, R. M. (2018). Patrones prosódicos en construcciones enumerativas – una visión desde la perspectiva del contacto Español – Quechua. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 32(2), 35–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2006). Construction Grammar – Eine Grammatik für die Interaktion? In A. Deppermann, R. Fiehler, & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion (pp. 43–65). Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
(2011). Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktionale Linguistik: Affinitäten, Komplementaritäten und Diskrepanzen. In A. Lasch, & A. Ziem (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III (pp. 205–238). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressel, D., & Teixeira Kalkhoff, A. (2019). Co-constructing utterances in face-to-face-interaction: A multimodal analysis of collaborative completions in spoken Spanish. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 2(2).Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehmer, O. (2016). Complex adverbial constructions. The case of X-MAIS-COMME-Y-Z in spoken French. Language Sciences, 58, 126–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Makrokonstruktionen. Komplexe Adverbialstrukturen zwischen lokaler Emergenz und Sedimentierung im gesprochenen Französisch. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ehmer, O., Satti, L. I., Martínez, A., & Pfänder, S. (2019). Un sistema para transcribir el habla en la interacción: GAT 2. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 20, 64–114, [URL] [20/12/2022].
Erickson, F. (1992). They know all the lines: rhythmic organization and contextualization in a conversational listing routine. In P. Auer, & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The Contextualization of Language (pp. 365–397). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar’. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 14–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. (2011). Between emergence and sedimentation: projecting constructions in German interactions. In P. Auer, & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp. 156–185). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., & Hopper, P. J. (2010). Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und im Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 11, 1–18, [URL] [20/12/2022].
Günthner, S. (2008). Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 9, 86–114 ([URL]).Google Scholar
Günthner, S., Imo, W., & Bücker, J. (Eds.). (2014). Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2017). Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(1), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1988). Emergent grammar and the A Priori Grammar constraint. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in Context: Connecting observation and understanding (pp. 117–134). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
(1998). Emergent Grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155–175). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2004). The Openness of Grammatical Constructions. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 40(2), 153–175.Google Scholar
Imo, W. (2007). Construction Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung: Konstruktionen mit zehn matrixsatzfähigen Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Individuelle Konstrukte oder Vorboten einer neuen Konstruktion? Stellungsvarianten der Modalpartikel halt im Vor- und Nachfeld. In K. Fischer, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik II (pp. 135–156). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2011). Ad hoc-Produktion oder Konstruktion? – Verfestigungstendenzen bei Inkrement-Strukturen im gesprochenen Deutsch. In A. Lasch, & A. Ziem (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III (pp. 141–256). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2012). Wortart Diskursmarker? In B. Rothstein (Ed.), Nicht-flektierende Wortarten (pp. 48–88). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Appositions in monologue, increments in dialogue? On appositions and apposition-like patterns in spoken German and their status as constructions. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 321–352). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a). Interactional Construction Grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 69–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). Zwischen Construction Grammar und Interaktionaler Linguistik: Appositionen und appositionsähnliche Konstruktionen in der gesprochenen Sprache. In A. Lasch, & A. Ziem (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV (pp. 91–214). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2018). Valence patterns, constructions, and interaction: Constructs with the German verb erinnern (‘remember’/‘remind’). In H. Boas, & A. Ziem (Eds.), Constructional approaches to argument structure in German (pp. 131–178). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1990). List construction as a task and interactional resource. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interactional competence (pp. 63–92). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Karlsson, S. (2010). Multimodalitet i listproduktion. Språk och interaktion, 2, 141–170.Google Scholar
Knerich, H. (2013). Listenkonstruktionen als vorgeformte Strukturen – vorgeformte Ausdrücke innerhalb von Listenkonstruktionen. Linguistik Online, 62(5), 97–117.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language and Society, 20(3), 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). Assisted Storytelling: Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical Matter. Qualitative Sociology, 15(3), 247–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Responsive list construction: A conversational resource for accomplishing multifaceted social action. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(1), 20–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, F., & Arcodia, G. F. (2018). Listing between lexicon and syntax: Focus on frame-naming lists. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 135–172.Google Scholar
Masini, F., Mauri, C., & Pietrandrea, P. (2018a). Lists: description, delimitation, definition. A foreword. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 41–48.Google Scholar
(2018b). List constructions: Towards a unified account. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 49–94.Google Scholar
Mauri C., Goria E., & Fiorentini I. (2019). Non-exhaustive lists in spoken language: A construction grammatical perspective. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 290–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C., & Sansò, A. (2018). Linguistic strategies for ad hoc categorization: theoretical assessment and cross-linguistic variation. Folia Linguistica Historica, 39(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. (2003). Forms and Uses of the Palm Up Open Hand. In C. Müller, & R. Posner (Eds.), The Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gestures (pp. 234–256). Berlin: Weidler.Google Scholar
Ono, T., & Thompson, S. A. (1995). What can conversation tell us about syntax? In P. W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp. 213–271). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. (1999). Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That: General extenders in English discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pekarek-Doehler, S. (2011). Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in Conversation (pp. 103–148). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfänder, S. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2019). Turn-sharing revisited: An exploration of simultaneous speech in interactions between couples. Journal of Pragmatics, 147, 22–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 308–329). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Ayala, I. (2003). Constructions as resources for interaction: lists in English and Spanish conversation. Discourse Studies, 5(3), 323–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Making a List. Discourse Processes, 17(3), 377–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schladebeck, A. (2015). Rhythm as a resource to generate prosodic coherence in lists. In R. Vogel & R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Rhythm in Cognition and Grammar. A Germanic Perspective (pp. 277–310). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoonjans, S., Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (2015). Multimodalität in der Konstruktionsgrammatik: Eine kritische Betrachtung illustriert anhand einer Gestikanalyse der Partikel einfach. In J. Bücker, W. Imo, & S. Günthner (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V (pp. 291–308). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Selting, M. (2004). Listen: Sequenzielle und prosodische Struktur einer kommunikativen Praktik – eine Untersuchung im Rahmen der Interaktionalen Linguistik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 23(1), 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 483–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
et al.. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssytem 2 (GAT2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 10, 353–402.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tao, H. (2019). List gestures in Mandarin conversation and their implications for understanding multimodal interaction. In X. Li, & T. Ono (Eds.) Multimodality in Chinese Interaction (pp. 65–98). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voghera, M. (2018). List Constructions: A specialized means of text progression. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 173–200.Google Scholar
Zima, E. (2014). Gibt es multimodale Konstruktionen? Eine Studie zu [V(motion) in circles] und [all the way from X PREP Y]. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 15, 1–48.Google Scholar
(2017). Multimodal constructional resemblance: The case of English circular motion constructions. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, A. Luzondo, & P. Pérez-Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing Families of Constructions (pp. 301–337). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Dankel, Philipp, Simon Titze & Ulrike Schröder
2024. Grounding lists. Interactional Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.