Multimodal Metaphors of Interculturereality / Metaforas multimodais da interculturealidade

Anna Ladilova

doi:10.17851/2237-2083.28.2.917-955

Multimodal Metaphors of Interculturereality / Metaforas multimodais da interculturealidade

Anna Ladilova

Abstract

Abstract: The present paper looks at the interactive construction of multimodal metaphors of interculturereality – a term coined by the author from interculturality and intercorporeality, assuming that intercultural interaction is always an embodied phenomenon, shared among its participants. For this, two videotaped sequences of a group conversation are analyzed drawing upon interaction analysis (Couper-Kuhlen; Selting, 2018). The data was transcribed following the GAT2 (Selting et al., 2011) guidelines, including gesture form annotation, which relied on the system described by Bressem (2013). Gesture function was interpreted drawing on the interactional context and on the system proposed by Kendon (2004) and Bressem and Müller (2013). The results question the validity of the classical conduit metaphor of communication (Reddy, 1979) in the intercultural context and instead propose an embodied approach to the conceptualization of the understanding process among the participants. The analysis also shows that even though the metaphors are multimodal, the metaphoric content is not always evenly distributed among the different modalities (speech, gesture). Apart from that, the metaphorical content is constructed sequentially, referring to preceding metaphors used by the same or different interlocutors and associated with metaphorical blends.

Keywords: metaphors; multimodality; interculturality; intercorporeality; migration.

Resumo: O presente artigo analisa a construção interativa de metáforas multimodais da interculturealidade – um termo proveniente da interculturalidade e intercorporealidade, assumindo que a interação intercultural é sempre um fenômeno incorporado, compartilhado entre os seus participantes. Para tal, duas sequências gravadas em vídeo de uma conversa em grupo serão analisadas com base na análise da interação (COUPER-KUHLEN; SELTING, 2018). Os dados foram transcritos seguindo as orientações do sistema GAT2 (SELTING et al., 2011), incluindo a anotação da forma gestual, que se baseou no sistema descrito por Bressem (2013). A função dos gestos foi interpretada com base no contexto interacional e no sistema proposto por Kendon (2004) e Bressem e Müller (2013). Os resultados questionam a validade da metáfora clássica do conduto de comunicação (REDDY, 2012) no contexto intercultural e, além disso, propõem uma abordagem corporificada da conceituação do processo de entendimento entre os participantes. A análise também mostra que, embora as metáforas sejam multimodais, o conteúdo metafórico não é sempre uniformemente distribuído entre as diferentes modalidades (fala, gesto). Além disso, o conteúdo metafórico é construído sequencialmente, referindo-se a metáforas anteriores utilizadas pelos mesmos ou diferentes interlocutores e recorrendo a mesclagens metafóricas.

Palavras-chave: metáforas; multimodalidade; interculturalidade; intercorporealidade; migração.

Keywords

metaphors; multimodality; interculturality; intercorporeality; migration; metáforas; multimodalidade; interculturalidade; intercorporealidade; migração.

Full Text:

PDF

References

ATTARDO, S. Humor and Laughter. In: TANNEN, D.; HAMILTON, H. E.; SCHIFFRIN, D. (org.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. 2. ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch8

BARTH-WEINGARTEN, D.; REBER, E.; SELTING, M. (org.). Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23

BOHNSACK, R.; NENTWIG-GESEMANN, I.; NOHL, A. M. Einleitung: Die dokumentarische Methode und ihre Forschungspraxis. In: BOHNSACK, R.; NENTWIG-GESEMANN, I.; NOHL, A.-M. (org.). Die dokumentarische Methode und ihre Forschungspraxis: Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. 2. ed. Wiesbaden: VS, 2007. p. 9-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19895-8_1

BRESSEM, J. A Linguistic Perspective on the Notation of Form Features in Gestures. In: MÜLLER, C.; CIENKI, A.; FRICKE, E.; LADEWIG, S. H.; MCNEILL, D.; TAßENDORF, S. (org.). Body – Language – Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. p. 1079-1098.

BRESSEM, J.; MÜLLER, C. A Repertoire of German Recurrent Gestures with Pragmatic Functions. In: MÜLLER, C.; CIENKI, A.; FRICKE, E.; LADEWIG, S. H.; MCNEILL, D.; TAßENDORF, S. (org.). Body – Language – Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. p. 1575-1591.

CIENKI, A. Why study metaphor and gesture? In: CIENKI, A.; MÜLLER, C. (org.). Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2008. p. 5-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.3

CIENKI, A.; MÜLLER, C. Introduction. In: CIENKI, A.; MÜLLER, C. (org.). Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2008. p. 1-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.3.03cie

COUPER-KUHLEN, E.; SELTING, M. (org.). Interacional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.

FAUCONNIER, G.; TURNER, M. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. 1. ed. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2002.

FUCHS, T. Intercorporeality and Interaffectivity. In: MEYER, C.; STREECK, J.; JORDAN, J. S. (org.). Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. p. 3-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210465.003.0001

GARDNER, R. When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Philadelphia : John Benjamins, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92

KECSKÉS, I. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001

KENDON, A. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572

KENDON, A. How Gestures Can Become Like Words. In: POYATOS, F. (org.). Cross Cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication. Toronto: Hogrefe, 1988. p. 131-141.

KOOLE, T.; THIJE, J. D. The Construction of Intercultural Discourse: Team Discussions of Educational Advisers. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994.

KÖVECSES, Z.; BENCZES, R. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

LADILOVA, A. Multimodale Analyse der interaktiven Aushandlung von Integration bei Brasilianer*innen in Deutschland. forthcoming.

MCNEILL, D. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

MCNEILL, D. Why We Gesture: The Surprising Role of Hand Movements in Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316480526

MERLEAU-PONTY, M. The Primacy of Perception. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. 1964.

MEYER, C.; STREECK, J.; JORDAN, J. S. Introduction. In: ______. (org.). Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. p. xv-xlix. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210465.001.0001

MÜLLER, C. Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001

REDDY, M. J. The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language. In: ORTONY, A. (org.). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. p. 284-324.

SCHEGLOFF, E. A. Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘uh huh’ and other Things that Come Between Sentences. In: TANNEN, D. (org.). Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ. Press, 1982. p. 71-93.

SCHEGLOFF, E. A. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

SCHÜTZ, A. The Stranger: an Essay in Social Psychology. American Journal of Psychology, Chicago, v. 49, n. 6, p. 499-507, 1944. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/219472

SELTING, M.; AUER, P.; BARTH-WEINGARTEN, D.; BERGMANN, J.; BERGMANN, P.; BIRKNER, K.; COUPER-KUHLEN, E.; DEPPERMANN, A.; GILLES, P.; GÜNTHNER, S.; HARTUNG, M.; KERN, F.; MERTZLUFFT, C.; MEYER, C.; MOREK, M.; OBERZAUCHER, F.; PETERS, J.; QUASTHOFF, U.; SCHÜTTE, W.; STUKENBROCK, A.; UHMANN, S. A System for Transcribing Talk-In-Interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, Göttinger, v. 12, p. 1-51, 2011.

STREECK, J. Gesturecraft: The Manu-Facture of Meaning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.2

TANAKA, S. Intercorporeality as a Theory of Social Cognition. Theory & Psychology, [S.l.], v. 25, p. 455-472, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315583035

VERTOVEC, S. Super-Diversity and Its Implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, [S.l.], v. 30, n. 6, p. 1024-1054, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465

WAGNER, P.; MALISZ, Z.; KOPP, S. Gesture and Speech in Interaction: An Overview. Speech Communication, [S.l.], v. 57, p. 209-232, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2013.09.008

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.28.2.917-955