Embodied musical meaning-making and multimodal viewpoints in a trumpet master class

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Embodied musical meaning-making and multimodal viewpoints in a trumpet master class Paul Sambre a,*, Kurt Feyaerts b a

Department of Linguistics, KU Leuven, Campus Sint-Andries (mail box 4.19 B), Sint-Andriesstraat 2, BE-2000 Antwerpen, Belgium b Department of Linguistics, KU Leuven, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21 (mail box 3308), BE-3000 Leuven, Belgium Available online 21 October 2017

Abstract This paper analyzes how an instructor in a trumpet master class exploits multimodal viewpoints while addressing sound in verbal and/or visuospatial terms in order to conceptualize the interpretation of a piece of music. We show how musical meaning emerges as both an abstract and locally situated, embodied discursive activity, in which speech is connected with metaphorical hand gestures and the material world. Multimodality of musical meaning involves not only abstract gesture and speech about musical ideas, but also implies the concrete use of material objects and actions, such as the instrument, the (breathing) body of the trumpet player, as well as reference to the musical score. Viewpoint is a central issue in this conceptual process: both teacher and student constantly put themselves in the shoes of the performer, simultaneously abstracting over and embodying both their own and the other's body-in-music as they perform and both verbally and gesturally address past and future trumpet playing. © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Music; Cognition; Embodiment; Interaction; Multimodality

1. Musical meaning as a multimodal activity in social interaction The ethnomusicological vision of music has changed the externalist perspective on music-making by its emphasis on the modes of musical interaction rather than on music as a mere auditory object (Finnegan, 1989; Cross and Tolbert, 2009). Ethnomusicology values the role of bodily expression and responses in music communication. Musicians’ gestures, body posture and facial expressions during ensemble rehearsals and concerts (King and Ginsborg, 2011; Poggi, 2002, 2011; Gritten and King, 2006:3) are considered cognitive and perceptual cues for the collective understanding of music (Schutz, 2008). Ethnomusicology's social shift ‘‘from paper to the embodied world’’ (Hospelhorn and Radinsky, 2016:4) radically changed the approach of the offline, exclusively philological musicological study of reception of music, in which musical performances are supposedly reduced to the faithful reproduction of a composer's musical score (Meyer, 2008:25; Hultberg, 2000; Bautista et al., 2009). Ethnomusicology paves the way for online musical performance, which may serve as an access point to our approach: the study of musical interactions as multimodal and embodied phenomena. Our linguistic goal is to better understand the interplay between bodily performance and speech. This bodily performance is to be understood in relation to both instrumental production (i.e. the use of the body in producing the sound or physical reference to the instrument-object) and the role of body movements and gesture in setting

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Sambre), [email protected] (K. Feyaerts). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.09.004 0378-2166/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

11

up a joint interpretation of the written score. As such, this paper wishes to fill two gaps. First, it gives a central position to spoken language in musical interactions (Merlino, 2014:421; Davidson and Good, 2002:189). Surprisingly, the analysis of musical performance (Ashley, 2014:1436--1437) has not yet systematically taken into account the role of language in creating agreement on musical performance and the role of the body is limited to joint musical action as a nonpropositional form of bodily coordination (Phillips-Silver and Keller, 2012; Glowinski et al., 2013). Second, it brings in the relation between speech and material artefacts such as the musical score. Multimodal interaction analysis of music, surprisingly, has not taken into account reference to printed musical scores in music teaching, as if the fixed script of the score has nothing to do with the more spontaneous way common ground between speech participants is built in interaction (Clark, 1996:202). As a consequence, the rather fragmented process of preparing concerts and the necessary talk leading to such performance in rehearsing or teaching, with its typical sequentiality of playing excerpts, interruptions, explanations, discussions and repetitions occurring between teachers (or conductors) and students (or musicians) over a score and an instrument, are largely left out of the picture in both linguistic and musical interaction analyses. Our approach to language in musical interaction is inspired by two research traditions: second-generation cognitive linguistics (CL), and the micro-analytic approach to embodied multimodal meaning in conversation analysis (CA), at first sight incompatible fields of inquiry (Langlotz, 2015:8--10). Both approaches are complementary in their shared focus on the fully contextualized, embodied and socio-cultural embeddedness of usage events (Halverson, 2013:37). Still, their empirical evidence concentrates on different aspects of meaning-making. CL's corpus-based focus has only recently shifted from systematizing over monomodal, static and dematerialized constructional representations of meaning to authentic ongoing meaning dynamics (Langacker, 2001; Brône et al., forthcoming; Feyaerts et al., 2017b), whereas CA has only recently started to consider conceptual meaning as relevant to interaction. Our dynamic cognitive perspective benefits from CA's fine-grained descriptions of naturally occurring data and its focus on interactional meaning-making in a material world (Deppermann, 2012:748; De Stefani and Sambre, 2016). This paper combines both approaches, identifying conceptualization as the outcome of a multimodal linguistic process, ‘‘in which the cerebral, bodily, social and historical attributes of a performer all converge, and if we choose to regard this convergence as an expression of the performer's mind, then we must remember that the mind is neither driving the body nor confined within the head’’ (Clarke, 2002:69). 2. Objectives of the research: intersubjective convergence over multimodal viewpoints in music This paper offers a detailed description of musical meaning in interaction as a co-expressive (McNeill, 2005:22--23), dynamic and multimodal process. Individual participants may conceive of one perceptual experience from different angles and represent their viewpoint grammatically (Langacker, 1991:501--502). Such conceptualization does not exclude secondary perspectivization (Verhagen, 2005, 2008a:139); constructions may provide indirect access to and represent other perspectives (Verhagen, 2008b:310). As a result, discourse potentially implies a network of mixed or embedded viewpoints on objects or events (Dancygier and Vandelanotte, 2016). A central cognitive issue then is how the complexity of viewing arrangements may constantly ‘‘allocate, maintain or shift’’ (Verhagen, 2016:3) viewpoints over different speakers, as discourse unfolds and conceptual information is updated over time (Langacker, 2008:30 and 70; Langacker, 2001). Joint musical meaning implies reaching conceptual agreement and bringing together potentially different viewpoints on a complex scene. Despite CL's mainly visual take on perception, Langacker (1987:122--123) provides a musical example of a conceptual viewpoint: while listening to a trumpet solo with piano accompaniment, different conceptualizers may focus on different parts in the music, which ultimately leads to different foregrounding or backgrounding of the same experience. Conceptualization and perspectivization occur across several expressive channels or semiotic modalities (Langacker, 2009:427; Schoonjans et al., 2016; Sweetser, 2012:11--12; Langacker, 2009:6): ‘‘[. . .] they can all figure in linguistic units abstracted from such events. Although each has a measure of autonomy, the various ways of coordinating and connecting them are an important dimension of language structure.’’ (Langacker, 2008:462). In line with Clark's (1996) joint action hypothesis, according to which any language use qualifies as an interactive process, Feyaerts et al. (2017a) present a corpus-based analysis of so called comical hypotheticals (Winchatz and Kozin, 2008) in terms of an intersubjectively construed viewpoint phenomenon. In this type of interactional humor, which Clark (1996:368) categorizes as ‘staged communicative acts’, conversation partners assume a mutual agreement to the idea of overtly fantasizing about imaginary and funny experiences (‘‘just imagine Mozart coming through that door, shaking his head, and then asking you to play that phrase again. . .’’). In utterances like these, a full conceptualization of the usage event necessarily includes an intersubjective perspectivization across different ‘layers of meaning’ (Clark, 1996), where the primary or basic layer corresponds to the concrete communicative situation between speaker and hearer (the ‘ground’ as Langacker calls it). Yet, in many staged communicative acts like comical hypotheticals, but also in sarcasm, irony, lying, teasing and many others, interlocutors do not necessarily act and communicate in line with the expectations and norms of that specific situation. Accordingly, in order to successfully realize a common humorous interpretation, they implicitly agree -- based on their mutually

12

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

assumed common ground -- to jointly activate a secondary layer of meaning, which can only operate relative to and hence dependent on the primary layer. These observations lead to a first objective, as we wish to document the way in which the multimodal nature of viewpoints is ‘orchestrated’ in interaction. So far, multimodal analyses have concentrated on linguistic and visuospatial modes of expression; gestures, for instance, contribute to an overall meaning as cues for the expression of deictic viewpoints, both from a bird's-eye perspective, or for the representation of individual participants in the interaction or other third-person characters (Sweetser, 2006: 215--217; Parrill, 2012). Bringing in a third dimension, i.e. sound and music, in addition to gesturovisual and spoken reference to music in setting up conceptual viewpoint adds, to our mind, essential flavor to the endeavor of multimodal analysis (van Leeuwen, 1999; Chapin and Clark, 2013). Our second objective concerns the relation between abstract thinking and the material world. Music-related cognition and interaction do not occur without the cognizing body nor without reference to the temporality and materiality of the external world (Mondada, 2011, 2013). Multimodal viewpoints in this respect are a large container, not limited to internal (representational or deictic) gestures of the hand, but as the array of embodied and material resources co-occurring with speech (McNeill, 2005:98) while symbolizing (about musical experience). As we speak, we establish (mental and physical) contact with the outer world of the printed musical score, through gestural-visual representation of the performer's bodily posture, facial expression and hands, as well as other non-verbal elements, such as the sound of the instrument or manipulation of the instrument as a material artefact. Usage events are not only multimodal, but inherently also dynamic (Cienki, 2015:500). Our third objective is to show how musical meanings are potentially updated (Langacker, 2001) and multimodally reenacted in every (phase of a) singular musical performance. This view on music performance as a dynamic conceptualization process differs in this respect from two other cognitive approaches to music. The first is work on cross-modal mappings occurring between music and text painting (Zbikowski, 2002, 2009), or the relation between music and gesture in Hollywood dance musicals (Zbikowski, 2011) inspired by blending theory. Whereas Zbikowski considers structural aspects of multimodal metaphors in music on the level of a more abstract decontextualized cultural product for a general audience, our analysis describes music as it is created in a contextualized linguistic usage event (Langacker, 2008:465; Sambre, 2013). Our social focus also differs from syntactic and neurolinguistic work on language and music (Jackendoff, 2009; Patel, 2008). The latter cognitive research has focused more on music structure, perception and (sensorimotor) action than on social agency, ‘‘which may shape and constrain participants’ interpretations of music's possible meanings’’ (Cross, 2012:325). 3. The corpus: a qualitative case-study on Enescu's Legend in a Hardenberger masterclass Our corpus consists of an English 2h140 video master class for advanced trumpeters at the Royal Northern College of Music (Hardenberger, 20081). The masterclass has a typical setup: after the student's performance for his audience and expert tutor, typically a renowned soloist or leading expert, critical feedback is provided. Students (re)play excerpts, after assessment and instructions by the tutor about different aspects of musical performance, such as tone and pitch, technique and artistic interpretation, with anecdotes about the piece, its composer, or the expert's personal experience (Taylor, 2010:200). We zoom in on the very first 3 min of instructor feedback (1:29:32-1:32:50) for the third student, right after the student's full performance of the piece. Our analysis differs from work by Szczepek Reed et al. (2013) and Tolins (2013) about multimodal instruction while the student (re)plays excerpts. In our corpus, instructor (on the right) and student (on the left) appear, accompanied by the piano, their faces, upper body and hands are visible at any time. In the masterclass, the instructor typically takes the lead in providing assessment and feedback; the student follows his directions and answers questions (Daniel and Parkes, 2014:114). The instructor, classical trumpeter Håkan Hardenberger, widely recognized for his mastery of the trumpet repertoire, both classical and contemporary (cf. Hardenberger, 2007), studied the trumpet at the Paris Conservatoire and knows the French repertoire perfectly well. The connection between Hardenberger and the world of French trumpet playing is an important analytical issue, both for choice of trumpet and repertoire. Ever since the 19th century, Paris has played an important role in the development of the trumpet as a solo instrument (Jakobsen Barth, 2007). Leading methods and books were developed by the French school of trumpet playing (André, 2007:57) by teachers such as Jean-Baptiste Arban, Merri Franquin, Théo Charlier, Maurice André and Pierre Thibaud (Hardenberger's Paris professor). Franquin contributed to the technical design of new instruments (Koehler, 2015:66), such as the C trumpet, which replaced the until then more popular F trumpet (Hickman, 2006:316) and softer sounding cornet. The student performs a contest solo of French trumpet repertoire, George Enescu's (1881--1955) Legend, written for his colleague Franquin in 1906 (Shamu, 2009). Legend broke new ground in trumpet performance (Koehler, 2014:159), as it combined Wagnerian tonal

1 Part of this excerpt is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EV46zWOuv4. The timings in our transcription refer to the original DVD. The unauthorized YouTube video only contains excerpt 1, discussed below.

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

13

Fig. 1. Enescu's Legend (1906[1951)] first seven bars, trumpet part in C and B flat.

progression with impressionistic coloring (Bentoiu, 2010:83; Lupu, 2012), two challenges Hardenberger explicitly mentions in his introduction to the master class (1:21:28-1:22:00). Legend was written for the new C trumpet (as it appears in Franquin, 2004:328--329) and only later published for the B flat (in the 1951 edition by the International Music Company the original C part still precedes the B flat version). We analyze two excerpts where the choice of instrument and tonal progression-coloring are framed as major challenges. The choice of instrument is thematized in the first excerpt. Structural aspects of the first seven bars in the first part of the ABA0 B0 A00 ternary structure are discussed in the second one, where a low tonic C minor expansion leads to a supertonic-tonic resolution in bar five (Sienkiewicz, 2005:34). Contrary to post hoc questionnaires or interviews (Long et al., 2014), micro-analytic video analysis provides dense descriptions of authentic in situ teaching (Daniel, 2006; Ivaldi, 2016). We transcribed speech, gestures, facial expressions, movement of the body, manual acts such as pointing to, touching or manipulating objects such as the musical score and the trumpet (Nevile, 2015:122). The transcriptions contain references to numbered images between square brackets [IM]: these video stills shots are presented in their order of appearance in Figs. 2 and 3. Transcription conventions are provided in an appendix. 4. Manipulating the instrument as a multimodal artefact After the student's performance, Hardenberger starts commenting the trumpet fingering of the student's B flat trumpet, in which the first transposed natural C is a first and third valve non-natural D (1/3, index finger and ring finger), instead of open (0, no valves pressed). Non-natural tones have a darker sound and give more air resistance, due to additional flow through the valve slides. D is harder to control than C, since it is naturally too sharp on the B flat and requires mechanically lowering D by pulling first or third valve. Fig. 1 shows the trumpet score in C and B flat in the 1951 American edition. In bars 2, 3, 4 and 6 the first beats are natural tones (no valves) in C: low and high C and G respectively. The fingerings on B flat are much more complex (1/3 and 1 respectively) and require repeated valve slide corrections. The student responds that he studied the piece on the B flat trumpet and considers it smoother. Smoothness here refers to the reading ease for flat key signatures for C minor on the treble staff: three lowers in C, only one in B flat. Hardenberger disagrees, referring to difficulty of intonation and finger settings. Although Hardenberger plays the C trumpet, he simulates 1/3 B flat fingering in (2). Hardenberger then discusses the advantages of the C trumpet choice. This interaction starts with simulations of right hand fingerings on the trumpet by both participants, horn-off-mouth (conventionally the left hand is for bearing the instrument and using slide triggers), and occasional playing by Hardenberger's, while the student signals approval of the instructor's words by means of vertical head nods. The participants watch each other and orient their bodies to each other, or focus on the trumpet score on the music stand (right of the image, not visible).

14

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

Fig. 2. Video stills of the first excerpt.

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

15

We first analyze the relation between (simulated) trumpet fingerings and the expression of linguistic viewpoints in speech. As the student refers to smoothness (07, IM1) he presses the 1/3 B flat valves of the first note, while watching the score. Hardenberger imitates this B flat fingering (12, IM2), referring to the tricky finger positions (13--14) and intonation (15--17). Open tone for natural C is expressed by means of a metaphoric two-hand gesture (15, IM3) and followed by performing a bright and open three note C-G-C sequence on the C trumpet [IM4] followed by the contrasting mouth off horn D 1/3 fingering (as on B flat) expressed both in fingerings and speech (16, IM5). Hardenberger gesturally and verbally switches between two instrument fingerings. This technical fingering issue is combined with shifts in deictic personal pronouns in the speech sequence. Hardenberger's explicit mention of a clear opposition between first and second person in his question and first reply (‘I’/‘my’ in (1), (7) and (9); ‘you’ (in 2 and 9), echoed by the student's ‘I’ in 3--4), shifts to the 3rd person perspective (12--17): ‘it makes it’, ‘it's tricky’, ‘it makes it [. . .] uncomfortable’. Hardenberger's pronouns and the student's 1/3 D fingering (in B flat) [IM5] are explicitly mentioned in speech and gesture. This combination of second person perspective student perspectivization and further depersonalization (16) culminates in a common viewpoint ‘we know’ (17), with a depersonalized ‘a much more complicated thing to do’. The use of the comparative nominal ‘a much more complicated thing to do’ (17) expresses a viewpoint not explicitly attributed to one of the two participants (‘we all know’ (16)), but shared as common trumpet knowledge: it is indeed easier to play no valve C, than 1/3 D with slide correction, particularly as the first note of the performance, in the absence of a relative tonal reference point. Hardenberger then puts himself in the student's shoes using a specific potentialis: ‘I would think twice about it for the future’ (i.e. if I were you in (19)). This potential mood provides a possibility and therefore contrasts with the present realis (‘it makes it really uncomfortable’ in (14)). Hardenberger does not impose his viewpoint but suggests it as the student's possible future option. Precisely at this point of the interaction (20, IM6), the student importantly performs trumpet fingerings 0 and 2/3, which correspond to C and E flat in the C trumpet part (the proof for this being that no note requiring 2/3 appears in the B flat part first seven bars). Whereas the C trumpet is suggested as a future option (plus frame in Langacker's terms), the student performs C fingerings in the current discourse space (20), acknowledging Hardenberger's viewpoint by both fingers and two successive head nods. Hardenberger now reverts from the student, whom he had been orienting his body and gaze to, back to the printed score, as he mentions the future (19, IM7), before Hardenberger shifts back to the ‘I’/‘you’ opposition in (21--24). When Hardenberger mentions the student's ‘your choice’ (21), the student quickly reverts to the B flat 1/3 fingering, enacting his own perspective (22). What this first sequence shows is the constant alternation between first person (singular/plural) and second person (singular) viewpoints as performers interact with the score and discuss quality of tone and intonation, not only in speech, but in hand gestures simulating manipulations of an imagined or real trumpet, particularly in fingerings required by different scores and correlated trumpet choices, occasionally combined with Hardenberger's playing the C. The concept at stake in the interaction concentrates on the best sounding and smoothest performance independently of viewpoints, which is expressed in the generic ‘we all know’ (16). The interaction in other words revolves around reference to and orientation toward (notes on) scores, real and imagined sounds and finger settings on the trumpet as an object in the performers’ hands. Divergence and convergence over musical viewpoints is set up multimodally, in the speech-soundmanipulation nexus, where hands are ‘‘shifting back and forth (sometimes rapidly) between doing things, showing things, and showing how to do things with things’’ (LeBaron and Streeck, 2000:120) as music is performed and assessed. Multimodal viewpoints then are not strictly confined to the local assessment of current musical performance. In (19) and (24) Hardenberger refers to the non-local (Reed and Szczepek Reed, 2014) ‘future’ (19) and to a past (‘cause I’ve heard you play [. . .] the C trumpet [. . .]’ (24)) performance on C trumpet: multimodal speech about the choice of the trumpet in the current discourse space extends over the entire trumpet experience of the student. 5. Melodic phrasing as enacted viewpoints of a musical idea in speech, gesture and sound The second excerpt of Hardenberger's first intervention concentrates on the phrasing of the first five bars in the first movement. A musical phrase is conventionally considered a structural, non-contextual and disembodied division of a melodic line with a minimal musical sense (Nattiez, 1990:158--159). From a performance perspective, phrases are correlated with the instrumentalist's maximal breath, since tone quality and phrasing directly depend on steady air flow, speed and volume (Ely and Van Deuren, 2009:139). Places for breathing are a central issue in trumpet playing; stronger dynamics requires more air, whereas soft playing extends the reach of the phrase and correlated musical idea. In phrasing, musical ideas mingle with physical limitations of the body. Whereas the first excerpt referred to the multimodal viewpoints in the choice of instrument and issues of trumpet manipulation, the following excerpt brings together multimodal viewpoints on breathing in phrasing as a typical embodied activity of trumpet playing at the interface of gesture, speech, the instrument and the score. Musical skills of musicians are typically in their performing bodies, e.g. in their lungs and hands, and this concrete haptic contact with the instrument phenomenologically goes together with enacting abstract musical thinking (Streeck, 2009:57--58). The instructor shows a similarity between the student and himself: nerves affect breathing (10--11), pushing the artist to interrupt a musical phrase (1--2). In the first excerpt, the instructor made reference to the student's future and past. Here, Hardenberger mentions his own nervousness at a past performance. In this excerpt, Hardenberger connects the two players’ viewpoints as he thematizes phrasing in trumpet playing.

16

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

Excerpt 2: Hardenberger, 2008, 1:30:40-1:32:55

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

17

Fig. 3. Video stills of the second excerpt.

Hardenberger does not insist on how to phrase, but on mouth-off-horn knowing (12) and explicitly thinking (13) where to breathe, beforehand, ‘when you feel nerves’ (10), instead of letting breath depend on coincidence during the playing. He does so both in setting up a joint viewpoint in speech and gesture. The student confirms a breathing error, due to ‘a bit of nerves’ (07). Hardenberger offers a solution, adopting a second person perspective in the instruction ‘make your priority’ (09). Repeated breathing is visually represented by a circular movement repeated three times with both hands [IM11] as a

18

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

metaphorical repetition over a path (Larson, 2012:68). Conscious breathing clearly is a first requirement in trumpet playing, beyond the student's local error: in combination with the possessive in the second person pronoun, this cyclic gesture entails an impersonal, generic, hence non-locally referential reading, particularly when Hardenberger in (14) to (25) tells an anecdote about his own nervousness at the Last Night of the Proms, a live performance at London's Royal Albert Hall, before thousands of people. This first person singular past viewpoint (‘I’ repeated in 15, 20, 21, 23, and 25) turns into a both joint and generic plural gnomic present ‘we’ perspective: ‘again we have nerves for what we do’ (41), ‘if we don’t take the risks, what's the point’ (44). The full excerpt until (44) frames the local individual problem of nervousness as a shared one and offers a concrete, local solution to this: ‘breathe’ (21) and ‘taking time breathing’ (22). Breathing becomes the generic instruction musicians address to themselves for great phrasing. The two-hand gesture [IM11], with both hand palms chest-high at about 50 cm apart, acts as a cohesive device in the generic explanation about phrasing, in lines 01, 14, 42 (IM8, 11 and 24, respectively): the visual organization of hands-inspace cross-modally and metaphorically refers to the length of the musical phrase. This gesture is disambiguated in the accompanying speech (Belhiah, 2013:424). This catchment (McNeill, 2000:316; McNeill et al., 2001), or the repetition of these three structurally convergent gestures, creates, maintains and represents (McNeill, 1992:16; McNeill and Levy, 1993; Contento, 1999:703) global metaphoric music imagery in spatial terms: a musical phrase is expressed as the distance between two hands. The joint multimodal viewpoints in other words coincide with setting up analogical meaning (Calbris, 2011:26) about musical phrasing. Speaking as both hands open up refers to stronger volume and longer phrases and dynamically transforms the generic, abstract substance of the shape fictively presented between two hands in a specific enaction of sound volume and duration (Lapaire, 2016:31). This catchment Hardenberger connects with ‘take the breath’ (01), its repeated ‘number one priority’ (14). The catchment in (42) calls for ‘an even wider range of dynamics’ (42) in speech, referring to softer piano playing and slower crescendo in the first seven Legend bars. Within this global speech-gesture joint viewpoint, three additional gestural activities take place, related to physical activities involving the breathing body and the trumpet, the score, as well as participants external to trumpet playing. First, following a musical convention, Hardenberger conceives of a melodic phrase as an arc, with a rise and fall in pitch and dynamics (Bisesi and Windsor, 2016:622). Breathing ‘breaks the vital point of tension’ (35); whereas speech in (35) focuses on the problem, the solution -- an uninterrupted full arc -- is manually gestured here between the thumb and index [IM19]. The differences in phrasing by student and instructor are not only discussed, but also performed by Hardenberger, who plays these two interpretations alternatively. ‘So you were doing’ (32) is followed by quoting the student's phrase on the trumpet, with slow intermediary breathing and relaxed embouchure [IM18]. This is not audible, but made visible in the jaw, and this musical quotation is acknowledged through a head nod by the student. This trumpet quotation is not a mere imitation, but conceptually highlights and negatively assesses (Tolins, 2013) the space between the notes where breathing occurs, through a long breathing space. Hardenberger then performs his own version (‘so instead if you do’), without breathing (38, IM22-23). The embouchure and jaw remain unrelaxed at the intended point [IM22], and more importantly, the phrase is physically stretched (Wolfe, 2013) a few bars longer than in the student's enactment and leads to a softer piano at the end of the diminuendo. This contrast is visually enacted by Hardenberger, as he bends downwards at the end of the melodic arc [IM23]. Both the acoustics and the gesture while reenacting and playing the trumpet then is not just an acoustic phenomenon, as it integrates symbolic meaning taken from other, spoken and gestural layers in a ‘‘sonic surrogate’’ (Haviland, 2007:157). Hardenberger's enacting repeats the speech-gesture idea of an arc in (35), in the image-schematic contours and movement of his body and trumpet, and metaphorically (Snyder, 2001:154) attributes it to the spoken ‘you’ (32 and 38). Musical viewpoints are again enacted not only by language, but also by the gesture, objects and sounds associated with such verbal viewpoints in musical quotation. Furthermore, gestural embodiment of breathing combines metaphorical motion over a gestural path schema (Larson, 2012:76) with the motor capacities of the (own) breathing body: as Hardenberger verbally mentions breathing, he makes two different gestures. His right hand first moves forward (21 [IM13]) and then backward (22 [IM14]) as he breathes, distinguishing between exhalation (physically projecting air into the trumpet), announcing the horizontal arc (mentioned in (19)) and inhalation (taking breath). Hardenberger's verbalgestural viewpoint for breathing visualizes the linking of reducing stress and air (Campos, 2005:143) in his own body. Second, the deictic pointing to the score, which is on Hardenberger's right [IM9 and IM20], has a clear practical and conceptual function: the musical score is an action-oriented boundary object where musical interpretation comes about and annotations are (to be) written down in the musical learning process (Winget, 2008:1879). Whereas musicologists’ analyses of annotations focus on their formal characteristics, i.e. as the output of collective music playing, our analysis shows the ongoing process in which a score brings about interpretations and is further annotated. The musical score, as a material anchor (Hutchins, 2005), has a practical, mnemonic and conceptual function not only in performing music, but also in explaining contrasting viewpoints in speech. Whereas image [9] refers to Hardenberger's suggestion to ‘write in where you gonna breathe’ (12), pointing in (20) refers to the label doux (soft) in Enescu's score (cf. Fig. 1): ‘it makes this which he [Enescu] marks as doux [followed by a 2 s pause] makes too much of a major point of that’ (36--37). So, Hardenberger's instruction not to breathe where no explicit annotation is to be put by the student keeps the interpretation closer to Enescu's original musical idea. Pointing connects the composer and performer's viewpoint in the same score.

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

19

Hardenberger enacts the composer, through the untranslated French ‘doux’, softly pronounced, and a metaphoric movement of fingers sensing some thin object. Whereas the spoken third person observer viewpoint is marked in the personal pronoun ‘he’ (36), Hardenberger simultaneously takes composer character viewpoint (Parrill, 2009) on the level of prosody and gesture. Quoting the printed score, and making the tactile gesture, Hardenberger looks for the most faithful performance of sound quality within the phrase. In other words, the interaction takes place at the intersection of the written score and its connection with the recollection of physical and acoustic aspects of trumpet playing: ‘I remember all I thought was breathe and take time breathing’ (21--22), and gestural reference to the French sound tradition. Third, multimodality influences the enactment of external, third person perspectives. Already in (18) Hardenberger enacts the producer adding to the stress of playing at the Proms (18 [IM12]). Hardenberger even performed his own way of taking time for breathing then (21 [IM13]), and enacted how he relistened to his playing afterwards (25 [IM16, in which Hardenberger's right hand touches his ear]). Here again, role-playing involving the instructor as a third-person character is used as an illustration for the way trumpeters’ common perception may be subjective (‘you know, our perception of reality is sometimes is distorted’ (27--29)). This point is acknowledged by the student's head nod (28). Note the metaphorical variation in the gesture between hearing music (25 [IM15]) and perceiving reality (27 [IM16]), where Hardenberger's fingers simulate grasping a thin object: sound experiences are gesturally depicted as hearing and manual perception. At the end of the sequence, Hardenberger turns to the shared viewpoint (first-person ‘we’ in (44)): he mentions the ultimately unimportant presence or absence of an audience (‘cameras or no cameras’ (45)), while his hand is pointing to the camera recording the master class [IM25]. In doing so, he puts the trumpet performer (himself, the student, and all trumpet players), as a general category, in the very center of trumpet playing, as opposed to the third-party audience and camera. 6. Conclusion jointly conceptualizing music in a material and embodied world Our analysis shows that information packaging in master classes cross-modally integrates different types of conceptual information and represents the enactment of different viewpoints in a coherent teacher's perspective. In assessing trumpet playing, the instructor dominates the interaction: he provides access to the viewpoints of different participants within (instructor, student) and beyond (cameras, producers, composers) the interaction. Abstract musical ideas are set up by the instructor in many different layers: not only gesture, but actively involving in speech the material world of the trumpet and its many musical facets (instrument selection, sound, dynamics, phrasing), the performers’ bodies breathing and manipulating real objects (such as the trumpet and the written score) as material anchors for interpretation, in which instrumental actions are interwoven with communicative acts (Streeck, 2009:83). The instructor re-elaborates different viewpoints on technical issues and musical interpretation integrating all of them in an ideal performance. He orchestrates the local, embodied practice of trumpet playing fitting in past and future experiences. This analysis of multimodal meaning-making calls for taking into account the distribution of symbolic generic objects and actions in language, within concrete, simulating and embodied usage events from which meaning-making arises (Lindblom, 2015; Johnson, 2015:28). In doing so, abstract musical ideas and the higher-order mutual representations of participants’ viewpoints are connected with the concrete action-world of trumpet playing and manipulation of material objects in music instruction. In future work we will further explore the multimodal relation between language and music in relation to additional embodied features of trumpet playing and singing. Multimodal interaction analysis is holistic and integrative, it incorporates several semiotic modes and material contextual layers in its description of socio-cognitive operations and provides thick qualitative descriptions of human interaction. Our hope is that this work may contribute not only to extending the empirical focus of cognitively inspired multimodality studies on in vivo interaction and discourse, as a behaviorally grounded spin-off for social cognitive linguistics (Divjak et al., 2016:7; Langacker, 2016:467), but also, on a more applied level, that it will offer musicians concrete insights about how they make music in the real world. Appendix. Transcription conventions Speech is transcribed (according to Gail Jefferson's system common in CA, Hepburn and Bolden, 2013). Multimodal transcription for embodied conduct inspired by Mondada (2011). Further symbols refer to musical objects. Speech [ (.) (1.6) : /

overlapping talk micro pause timed pause extension of the sound of syllable it follows rise in inflection

20

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

\ 8breathe8 breathe .h h ((laughs)) ()

drop in inflection quieter fragment than surrounding talk emphasis inhalation exhalation described phenomenon unclear audio

Embodied ** * *----> ------->* . . .. px Tpl w r b h v fw bw uw dw po fc HDN [IM9]

conduct delimit conduct of participant punctual conduct of participant at symbol action or gesture starts at symbol action or gesture continued action or gesture continues to symbol action's preparation pointing at x playing the trumpet watching raise bend horizontal vertical moves toward moves backward moves upwards moves downwards hand palm open hand fingers closed head nod (positive) image screen shot and number

Participants, body parts and objects TE teacher ST student B body H hand RH right hand LH left hand 2H two hand movement T Tpv Tpv0 Tpv1/3 SC plTC

trumpet right hand presses trumpet valve right hand presses no valves, natural tone right hand presses valves 1/3, non-natural tone score superscripts for notes played on the trumpet

References André, Maurice, 2007. Le Soleil doit pouvoir briller pour tout le monde. Souvenirs et Mémoires de la Trompette du Siècle. Publibook, Paris. Ashley, Richard, 2014. Bodily interaction of (interpreters) in music performance. In: Müller, C., et al. (Eds.), Body--Language--Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, vol. 2. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin and Boston, pp. 1432--1440. Bautista, Alfredo, Echeverría, Pérez, del Puy, Ma, Pozo, Ignazio, Brizuela, J., Bùarbara, M., 2009. Piano students’ conceptions of musical scores as external representations: a cross-sectional study. J. Res. Music 57 (3), 181--202. Belhiah, Hassan, 2013. Using the hand to choreograph instruction: on the functional role of gesture in definition talk. Mod. Lang. J. 97 (2), 417--434. Bentoiu, Pascal, 2010. Masterworks of George Enescu. A Detailed Analysis. Scarecrow, Lanham.

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

21

Bisesi, Erica, Windsor, W. Luke, 2016. Expression and communication of structure in music performance: measurements and models. In: Hallam, S., Cross, I., Thaut, M. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 615--632. Brône, Geert, Sambre, Paul, Oben, Bert, Feyaerts, Kurt, 2017. Die kreative und interaktive Konstruierung mentaler Räume. Gesprächsforschung. (forthcoming). Calbris, Geneviève, 2011. Elements of Meaning in Gesture. Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Campos, Frank G., 2005. Trumpet Technique. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Chapin, Keith, Clark, Andrew H. (Eds.), 2013. Speaking of Music: Addressing the Sonorous. Fordham University Press, Fordham. Cienki, A., 2015. Spoken language usage events. Lang. Cogn. 7 (4), 499--514. Clark, Herbert H., 1996. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Clarke, Eric, 2002. Understanding the psychology of performance. In: Rink, J. (Ed.), Musical Performance. A Guide to Understanding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 59--72. Contento, Silvana, 1999. Gestural cohesion in discourse. In: da Graça Pinto, M., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of 5th Congress of the International Society of Applied Psycholinguistics. Facultade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, Porto, pp. 701--705. Cross, Ian, 2012. Music as a social and cognitive process. In: Rebuschat, P., Rohrmeier, M., Hawkins, J., Cross, I. (Eds.), Language and Music as Cognitive Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 315--328. Cross, Ian, Tolbert, Elisabeth, 2009. Music and meaning. In: Hallam, S., Cross, I., Thaut, M. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 24--34. Dancygier, Barbara, Vandelanotte, Lieven, 2016. Discourse viewpoint as network. In: Dancygier, B., Lu, W., Verhagen, A. (Eds.), Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin and Boston, pp. 13--40. Daniel, Ryan, 2006. Exploring music instrument teaching and learning environments: video analysis as a means of elucidating process and learning outcomes. Music Educ. Res. 8 (2), 191--215. Daniel, Ryan J., Parkes, Kelly A., 2014. Assessment and critical feedback in the master--apprentice relationship: rethinking approaches to the learning of a music instrument. In: Lebler, D., Carey, G., Harrison, S.D. (Eds.), Assessment in Music Education: From Policy to Practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 107--124. Davidson, J.W., Good, J.M.M., 2002. Social and musical co-ordination between members of a string quartet. Psychol. Music 30, 186--201. De Stefani, Elwys, Sambre, Paul, 2016. L’exhibition et la négociation du savoir dans les pratiques définitoires: l’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide. Languages 204 (4), 27--42. Deppermann, Arnulf, 2012. How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction. Lang. Sci. 34, 746--767. Divjak, Dagmar, Levshina, Natalia, Klavan, Jane, 2016. Cognitive linguistics: looking back, looking forward. Cogn. Linguist. 27 (4), 447--463. Ely Marc, C., Van Deuren, Amy E., 2009. Wind Talk for Brass. A Practical Guide to Understanding and Teaching Brass Instruments. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Feyaerts, Kurt, Oben, Bert, Lackner, Helmut Karl, Papousek, Ilona, 2017. In: Dancygier, B., Vandelanotte, L. (Eds.), Alignment and Empathy as Viewpoint Phenomena: The Case of Amplifiers and Comical Hypotheticals. Special Issue on ‘Viewpoint in and across Multimodal Artifacts’ Cogn. Linguist. 28 (3), 485--509. Feyaerts, Kurt, Brône, Geert, Oben, Bert, 2017. Multimodality in interaction (Chapter 9). In: Dancygier, B. (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 135--156. Finnegan, Ruth, 1989. The Hidden Musician: Music-making in an English Town. Cambridge University Press. Franquin, Merri, 2004. Méthode complète de trompette moderne, de cornet à pistons et de bugle. Enoch, Paris. Glowinski, Donald, Mancini, Maurizio, Camurri, 2013. Studying the effect of creative joint action on Musician's Behavior. In: de Michelis, G., et al. (Eds.), Arts and Technology. Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 113--119. Gritten, Anthony, King, Elaine, 2006. Music and Gesture. Aldershot, Ashgate. Halverson, Sandra, 2013. Implications of cognitive linguistics for translation studies. In: Rojo, A., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Translation. Advances in Some Theoretical Models and Applications. Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 33--74. Hardenberger, Håkan, 2007. The Art of the Trumpet. 5CDs. Deutsche Grammophon, Berlin. Hardenberger, Håkan, 2008. Trumpet Masterclass from the Royal Northern College of Music. The Masterclass Media Foundation, London. Haviland, John B., 2007. Master speakers, master gesturers: a string quartet master class. In: Duncan, S., et al. (Eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill. Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 147--172. Hepburn, Alexa, Bolden, Gakiba B., 2013. Transcription. In: Sidnell, J., Stivers, T. (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 57--76. Hickman, David, 2006. Trumpet Pedagogy: A Compendium of Modern Teaching Techniques. Hickman Music Editions, Chandler. Hospelhorn, Emma, Radinsky, Josh, 2016. Method for analyzing gestural communication in musical groups. Discourse Process. (Published online 15.01.16). Hultberg, Cecilia, 2000. The Printed Score as a Mediator of Musical Meaning Approaches to Music Notation in Western Tonal Music. Academic of Music PhD Lund University, Malmö. Hutchins, Edwin, 2005. Material anchors for conceptual blends. J. Pragmat. 37 (10), 1555--1577. Ivaldi, Antonia, 2016. Students’ and teachers’ orientation to learning and performing in music conservatoire lesson interactions. Psychol. Music 44 (2), 202--218. Jackendoff, Ray, 2009. Parallels and nonparallels between language and music. Music Percept. 26 (3), 195--204. Jakobsen Barth, Verena, 2007. Die Trompete als Soloinstrument in der Kunstmusik Europas seit 1900 mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Antwicklung ab 1980 am Beispiel der Solisten Håkan Hardenberger, Ole Edvard Antonsen und Reinhold Friedrich. Skrifter från Institutionen för musikvetenskap, Gothenburg. Johnson, Mark, 2015. The aesthetics of embodied life. In: Scarinzi, A. (Ed.), Aesthetics and the Embodied Mind: Beyond Art Theory and the Cartesian Mind-Body Dichotomy. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 23--38. King, Elaine, Ginsborg, Jane, 2011. Gestures and glances: interactions in ensemble rehearsal. In: Gritten, A., King, E. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Music and Gesture. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 177--202. Koehler, Elisa, 2014. Fanfares and Finesse: A Performer's Guide to Trumpet History and Literature. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

22

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

Koehler, Elisa, 2015. A Dictionary for the Modern Trumpet Player. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham. Langacker, Ronald W., 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Langacker, Ronald W., 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 2: Descriptive Applications. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Langacker, Ronald W., 2001. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cogn. Linguist. 12 (2), 143--188. Langacker, Ronald W., 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Langacker, Ronald W., 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin and New York. Langacker, Ronald W., 2016. Working toward a synthesis. Cogn. Linguist. 27 (4), 465--477. Langlotz, Andreas, 2015. Creating Social Orientation through Language. A Socio-cognitive Theory of Situated Social Meaning. Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Lapaire, Jean-Rémi., 2016. From ontological metaphor to semiotic make-believe: giving shape and substance to fictive objects of conception with the ‘‘globe gesture’’. Signo 41 (70), 29--44. Larson, Steve, 2012. Musical Forces: Motion, Metaphor and Meaning in Music. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. LeBaron, Curtis, Streeck, Jürgen, 2000. Gestures, knowledge, and the world. In: McNeill, D. (Ed.), Language and Gesture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 118--138. Lindblom, Jessica, 2015. Meaning-making as a socially distributed and embodied practice. In: Scarinzi, A. (Ed.), Aesthetics and the Embodied Mind. Beyond Art theory and the Cartesian Mind-Body Dichotomy. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 3--19. Long, Marion, Creech, Andrea, Gaunt, Helena, Hallam, Susan, 2014. Conservatoire student's experiences and perceptions of instrument-specific master classes. Music Educ. Res. 16 (2), 176--192. Lupu, Olguţa, 2012. From the metaphor of water to correspondences between Enescu, Eminescu, Blaga and the Romanian spirituality. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai -- Musica 1, 79--102. McNeill, David, 1992. Hand and Mind. Chicago University Press, Chicago. McNeill, David, 2000. Catchments and contexts: non-modular factors in speech and gesture production. In: McNeill, D. (Ed.), Language and Gesture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 312--328. McNeill, David, 2005. Gesture and Thought. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. McNeill, David, Levy, Elena T., 1993. Cohesion and gesture. Discourse Process. 16 (4), 363--386. McNeill, David, Quek, Francis, McCullough, Karl-Erik, Duncan, Susan D., Furuyama, Nobuhiro, Bryll, Robert, Furuyama, Nobuhiro, Ansari, Rashid, 2001. Catchments, prosody and gesture. Gesture 1 (1), 9--33. Merlino, Sara, 2014. Singing in ‘‘another’’ language: how pronunciation matters in the organization of choral rehearsals. Soc. Semiot. 24 (4), 420--445. Meyer, Leonard B., 2008. Emotion and Meaning in Music. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Mondada, Lorenza, 2011. Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. J. Pragmat. 43, 542--552. Mondada, Lorenza, 2013. Multimodal interaction. In: Müller, C., et al. (Eds.), Body--Language--Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Volume 1. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 577--588. Nattiez, Jean-Jacques, 1990. Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Nevile, Maurice, 2015. The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 48 (2), 121--151. Parrill, Fay, 2009. Dual viewpoint gestures. Gesture 9 (3), 274--289. Parrill, Fay, 2012. Interactions between discourse status and viewpoint in co-speech gesture. In: Dancygier, Barbara, Sweetser, Eve (Eds.), Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective. Benjamins/Cambridge, Amsterdam and Philadelphia/Cambridge University Press, pp. 97--112. Patel, Aniruddh D., 2008. Music, Language, and the Brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Phillips-Silver, Jessica, Keller, Peter E., 2012. Searching for tools of entrainment and joint action in early musical interactions. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6 (Online 5.08.16). ´ Nuallláin, S., Mulvihill, C. (Eds.), Language, Vision and Music: Poggi, Isabella, 2002. The lexicon of the conductor's face. In: McKevitt, P., O Selected Papers from the 8th International Workshop on the Cognitive Science of Natural Language Processing, Galway, Ireland 1999. Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 271--284. Poggi, Isabella, 2011. Music and leadership: the choir's conductor multimodal communication. In: Stam, G., Ishino, M. (Eds.), Integrating Gestures. The Interdisciplinary Nature of Gesture. Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 341--353. Reed, Darren J., Szczepek Reed, Beatric, 2014. The emergence of learnables in music masterclasses. Soc. Semiot. 24 (4), 446--467. Sambre, Paul, 2013. Multimodal blending and musical creativity. Dualities in the quixotry of Richard Strauss, Jan Sandström and Christian Lindberg. In: Feyaerts, K., Veale, T., Forceville, Ch. (Eds.), Creativity and the Agile Mind. A Multidisciplinary Approach to a Multifaceted Phenomenon. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin and New York, pp. 315--333. Schoonjans, Steven, Sambre, Paul, Brône, Geert, Feyaerts, Kurt, 2016. Vers une analyse multimodale du sens. Perspectives constructionnelles sur la gestualité co-grammaticale. Languages 201, 33--49. Schutz, M., 2008. Seeing music? What musicians need to know about vision. Empir. Musicol. Rev. 3, 83--108. Shamu, Geoffrey, 2009. Merri Franquin and his Contribution to the Art of Trumpet Playing. Boston University Press, Boston. Sienkiewicz, Frederick, 2005. Research in Performance: Analysis of Five Trumpet Works. University of Massachusetts, Boston Unpublished Honors Project (499Y/P). Snyder, Bob, 2001. Music and Memory. An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Streeck, Jürgen, 2009. Gesturecraft. The Manufacture of Meaning. Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Sweetser, Eve, 2006. Looking at space to study mental spaces. Co-speech gesture as a crucial data source in cognitive linguistics. In: GonzalezMarquez, Monica, Mittelberg, Irene, Coulson, Seana, Spivey, Michael J. (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 201--224. Sweetser, Eve, 2012. Introduction: viewpoint and perspective in language and gesture, from the Ground down. In: Dancygier, Barbara, Sweetser, Eve (Eds.), Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1--22. Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, Reed, Darren, Haddon, Elisabeth, 2013. NOW or NOT NOW: coordinating restarts in the pursuit of learnables in vocal master classes. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 46 (1), 22--46.

P. Sambre, K. Feyaerts / Journal of Pragmatics 122 (2017) 10--23

23

Taylor, Angela, 2010. Participation in a master class: experiences of older amateur pianists. Music Educ. Res. 12 (2), 199--217. Tolins, Jackson, 2013. Assessment and direction through nonlexical vocalizations in music instruction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 46 (1), 47--64. van Leeuwen, Theo, 1999. Speech, Music, Sound. Palgrave Macmillan, London. Verhagen, Arie, 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Verhagen, Arie, 2008a. Intersubjectivity and explanation in linguistics: a reply to Hinzen and van Lambalgen. Cogn. Linguist. 19 (1), 125--143. Verhagen, Arie, 2008b. Intersubjectivity and the architecture of the language system. In: Zlatev, Jordan, et al. (Eds.), The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 307--331. Verhagen, Arie, 2016. Introduction: on tools for weaving meaning out of viewpoint threads. In: Dancygier, B., Lu, W., Verhagen, A. (Eds.), Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning. Berlin and Boston, pp. 1--10. Winchatz, Michaela, Kozin, Alexander, 2008. Comical hypothetical: arguing for a conversational phenomenon. Discourse Stud. 10 (3), 383--405. Winget, Megan A., 2008. Annotations on musical scores by performing musicians: collaborative models, interactive methods, and music digital library tool developments. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59 (12), 1878--1897. Wolfe, Jocelyn, 2013. ‘How Far Can You Stretch a Note?’ Developing an Approach to the Study of Metaphor in the Language of Music Instruction. Unpublished PhD Griffith University, Queensland. Zbikowski, Lawrence, 2002. Conceptualizing Music: Cognitive Structure, Theory and Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York. Zbikowski, Lawrence, 2009. Music, language, and multimodal metaphor. In: Forceville, Ch., Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.), Multimodal Metaphor. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin and Boston, pp. 359--381. Zbikowski, Lawrence, 2011. Musical gesture and musical grammar: a cognitive approach. In: Gritten, A., King, E. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Music and Gesture. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 83--98. Paul Sambre is an assistant professor of discourse studies and Italian linguistics at the University of Leuven. His research is at the intersection of the cognitive, socio-semiotic and critical traditions in discourse studies. He is interested in cognitive linguistics (cognitive grammar, frame semantics, construction grammar), multimodality and Critical Discourse Analysis. Kurt Feyaerts is a full professor in German linguistics at the University of Leuven. His research interests emerge at the intersection between Cognitive and Interactional Linguistics and aspects of embodied (metaphorical) meaning as apparent in different types of interaction (for instance, in music performance).