CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 381Multilingual Education and PolicyHearing Impairment and CommunicationLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

Beyond languages, beyond modalities: transforming the study of semiotic repertoires

Open access
Kusters, Annelies, Spotti, Massimiliano, Swanwick, Ruth, Tapio, Elina·2017·International Journal of Multilingualism
DOI 10.1080/14790718.2017.1321651
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper presents a critical examination of key concepts in the study of (signed and spoken) language and multimodality. It shows how shifts in conceptual understandings of language use, moving from bilingualism to multilingualism and (trans)languaging, have resulted in the revitalisation of the concept of language repertoires. We discuss key assumptions and analytical developments that have shaped the sociolinguistic study of signed and spoken language multilingualism as separate from different strands of multimodality studies. In most multimodality studies, researchers focus on participants using one named spoken language within broader embodied human action. Thus while attending to multimodal communication, they do not attend to multilingual communication. In translanguaging studies the opposite has happened: scholars have attended to multilingual communication without really paying attention to multimodality and simultaneity, and hierarchies within the simultaneous combination of resources. The (socio)linguistics of sign language has paid attention to multimodality but only very recently have started to focus on multilingual contexts where multiple sign and/or multiple spoken languages are used. There is currently little transaction between these areas of research. We argue that the lens of semiotic repertoires enables synergies to be identified and provides a holistic focus on action that is both multilingual and multimodal.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14790718.2017.1321651

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Non-speech cues are central to disabled communicative practices, including those of autistic people, deaf people, and people with aphasia.

    “Beyond stuttering, non-speech cues are central to disabled communicative practices [41], including those of autistic people [3], deaf people [55], and people with aphasia [34].”

    From Disability-First AI Dataset Annotation: Co-designing Stuttered Speech Annotation Guidelines with People Who Stutter (2026) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Multimodality section says gestures can carry substantial weight in interactions between deaf signers and hearing non-signers, supporting the point for deaf communication. The citation [41] is attached to the broader statement about disabled communicative practices, but this paper does not establish that broader claim; the autistic and aphasia examples have separate citations. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stokoe, W. C., Casterline, D.C., & Croneberg, C. (1965). Language on Linguistic Principles. Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kusters, A., Spotti, M., Swanwick, R., & Tapio, E.
Affiliations
  • Heriot-Watt University (GB)
  • Tilburg University (NL)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Humak University of Applied Sciences (FI)
Corresponding author
Kusters, Annelies
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Multilingualism
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2017-05-10
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
219-232
ISSN
  • 1479-0718 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-7530
DOI
10.1080/14790718.2017.1321651
OpenAlex
W2613144819
Cited by
379
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14
FWCI
122.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • International Journal of Multilingualism (publishedVersion)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
  • Tilburg University Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Keywords
semiotic repertoires, multilingualism, multimodality, translanguaging, bilingualism, sign language, spoken language, multilingual communication, multimodal communication, simultaneous communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review