A Meticulous Review Of Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith and Zappavigna (2022)
08 May 2024
Graduation
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 35):
Turning to GRADUATION, as noted by Hood (2011) the size of hand shapes and the range of hand/arm motion can be used to support graded language. In (81) the sweeping extent of the hand/arm motion resonates with the large quantity of hair dye in stock (whole stack).
Blogger Comments:
06 May 2024
Combined Face And Body Commitment Of Affect
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 35):
A good example of a combined face and body commitment of affect in the vlog we are drawing our examples from comes as the vlogger is complaining about being hassled for her parking spot before she is ready to leave. The relevant tone groups are presented here, and we will return to this example in our discussion of mime in Chapter 7 (for a complete phonological analysis of this phase of the vlog, see Appendix B6). At this point we are simply interested in the way the vlogger’s facial expression and arm position are used to express the hassler’s exasperation (79).
(76) //3 some / guy was
(77) //3 sitting there and there was
(78) //3 cars be- / hind him and he was like
(79) // [mimics man’s gesture and expression]
(80) //1 ^ like / waving me / out… //
Blogger Comments:
This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): An Epilinguistic Projection Of Protolinguistic Body Language.
04 May 2024
Affect
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 34):
As outlined by Martin and White (2005) attitude may not be explicitly inscribed in language but invoked by ideational choices a speaker expects a reaction to. We introduced an example of this in (64) earlier; a headshot from this image is blown up in (64''), as the vlogger introduces the good news that her hair dye is back in stock at Target. Her smiling face makes explicit the affect that her language does not.
Blogger Comments:
This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Meaning Of A Smile.
[2] Here again the authors deploy the logical fallacy of 'begging the question' (petitio principi), since they assume the point their argument needs to establish, namely that the speaker's smile realises an assessment: the goodness of the 'news that her hair dye is back in stock at Target' (the authors' interpretation, not the speaker's words).
This also means that, if an assessment is being realised by the smile, it is solely an assessment of Target. However, no assessment is being made here, the smile simply realises the speaker's positive emotion, as will be argued below.
meaning | kinetic expression | ||
action | regulatory | I want, refuse, threaten | ø eg raised fist, glower |
instrumental | give me, I invite you | ø eg extended hand | |
reflection | interactional | togetherness, bonding | ø eg mutual eye gaze |
personal | emotions | ø eg smiling face |
(adapted from Matthiessen 2007: 5)
02 May 2024
Appreciation
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 34, 233):
Paralanguage deploys facial expression and bodily stance to share attitude. In (75) our vlogger nuances her appreciation (exciting) of a neighbourhood get-together she has dressed up for with raised eyebrows and a lopsided-mouth expression³¹ (which we might read as indicating that some followers might not find it all that exciting).
³¹ The ‘out-of-kilter’ mouth here can be interpreted as soft focus, converging with kind of.
Blogger Comments:
This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Nuancing Appreciation By (Not) Looking Surprised.
In (semovergent) paralanguage, the meanings of ATTITUDE can be realised by facial expression and bodily stance.
[3] On Cléirigh's original model, the eyebrow raising here is an instance of linguistic body language (sonovergent paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language (semovergent body language). This would be obvious if the authors had included the tone choice of the accompanying tone group, which they wrongly analyse for tonicity. The speaker places the tonic on that's, marking it as the focus of New information, and uses tone 3 (level pitch):
//3 ^ so / that's / kind of ex/citing //
The tone group, which immediately follows an edit, begins at a high pitch and stays at that level throughout. The eyebrows do the same, and so function the same interpersonally as the tone choice; see [4].
[4] To be clear, the "lopsided mouth" is, in this instance, merely a feature of the speaker's anatomy.
The meaning that the authors attribute to the speaker's anatomy is actually the meaning realised by her eyebrow position and tone choice. As Halliday (1994: 305) points out, tone 3 with declarative mood can realise the KEY feature 'unimportant'. So here the speaker's interpersonal paralanguage does not "resonate" with the positive APPRECIATION realised in wording; in fact, it contradicts it — what psychologists call 'involuntary self-disclosure'.
[5] Leaving aside the fact that the authors have attributed the meaning realised by the speaker's eyebrow position to a permanent feature of the speaker's anatomy, the authors here provide no basis whatsoever for interpreting an 'out of kilter' mouth as realising the GRADUATION feature 'soft focus'. It is merely a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument or evidence of any kind. Readers familiar with the field of multimodality will not be surprised by this, of course.
30 April 2024
Interpersonal Semovergent Paralanguage
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 33-4):
Evaluation (interpersonal semovergent paralanguage)
From an interpersonal perspective we need to take into account how spoken language inscribes attitudes, grades qualities and positions voices other than the speaker’s own (APPRAISAL). Semovergent paralanguage potentially resonates with APPRAISAL resources through facial expression, bodily stance, muscle tension, hand/arm position and motion (Hood, 2011; Ngo, 2018; Hao and Hood, 2019; Ngo, 2019) and voice quality (Caldwell, 2013). Whereas spoken language can make explicit attitudes of different kinds (emotional reactions, judgements of character and appreciation of things), paralanguage can only enact emotion. A further interpersonal restriction, setting aside emblems (e.g. the ‘thumbs-up’ or ‘OK’ gestures discussed in Section 1.6; cf. Kendon, 2004; McNeill, 2012), is that semovergent paralanguage cannot be used to support NEGOTIATION by distinguishing move types in dialogic exchanges (although sonovergent paralanguage can of course support tone choice in relation to these moves).
Blogger Comments:
With one misleading omission, this is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). The misleading omission is the wording '(as suggested by Cléirigh)' after 'A further interpersonal restriction'. Again, the plagiarism in this work is effected through myriad small steps.
Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Interpersonal Semovergent Paralanguage.
the instantiation of interpersonal meanings of semovergent paralanguage, realised in facial expression, bodily stance, muscle tension hand/arm position and motion and voice quality, "agrees with" the instantiation of interpersonal meanings of APPRAISAL systems.
- an ugly man — semantically: a conscious thing;
- a gorgeous blue — semantically: a quality;
- a breath-taking performance — semantically: a process;
- scoring that goal in extra-time was pure magic — semantically a figure;
- scoring one goal and setting up three more was sensational — semantically a sequence.
28 April 2024
Semovergent Paralanguage And CONNEXION
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 33):
As noted earlier, ideationally semovergent paralanguage, as formulated in Chapter 4, does not involve resources for explicitly connecting gestures in terms of addition, comparison, temporality or causality and so does not converge with CONNEXION in spoken language.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This confuses levels of abstraction. To be clear, it is not a matter of connecting gestures, but a matter of gestures (expression) realising logico-semantic relations between figures (content).
[2] To be clear, any gesture that realises relators such as 'and', 'or', before', 'after' etc. serves this function, such as pointing left, right, forward, behind while saying the temporal relator.
A more interesting case is the logico-semantic relation that Martin's CONNEXION does not account for: projection. A speaker can mark a projection by imitating the indexical features of the Sayer of the projecting figure. Halliday (1989: 30-1):
Indexical features, by contrast [with paralinguistic features], are not part of the language at all, but simple properties of the individual speaker. It may help to tabulate these (see Table 3.1).
26 April 2024
Motion Used To Support Direction
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 33):
Motion can also be used to support direction in space or time. In Section 1.5.1 we illustrated two examples of hands sweeping right to left towards the past, concurring with the tone groups //2 bought / previously when I // (57) and // loved the / first time // (58). These contrast with left-to-right movement towards the future, concurrent with // hopefully next time I will //. This motion to the right is reinforced by a pointing gesture, which we discuss in Section 1.5.2.3 (as textual semovergence).
Blogger Comments:
This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Gestural Motion "Supporting" Direction In Space Or Time.
In examples (2) and (3) the vlogger makes a sweeping right-to-left gesture referencing past time;
If next time is interpreted as a circumstantial Adjunct, then, as a circumstance of Location, it signifies 'rest' not 'motion'. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 317):
However, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3) list next time as an example of a conjunctive Adjunct (enhancement: spatiotemporal: complex). On this reading, the meaning of next time is textual in metafunction, rather than ideational.
In Martin (1992), however, cohesive conjunction in the grammar is misunderstood as a logical system of discourse semantics (now termed CONNEXION). That is, in Martin's terms, this gesture "concurs" with a logical relation between message parts in a message (here relabelled as figure and sequence, after Halliday & Matthiessen 1999). However, the authors failed to recognise it as an instance of Martin's CONNEXION.
24 April 2024
Motion On Its Own
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 32-3):
Motion can also occur on its own, without a hand shape concurring with an entity. For example, the vlogger uses a circular hand motion (two rotations) concurrent with the tone group //1 tried washing it / out it’s //.
Blogger Comments:
This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Failing To Account For Body Language Meaning.
22 April 2024
Hand Shapes
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 32):
As noted earlier, for this paralinguistic sequence hand shape and motion are combined. In other cases hand shapes occur on their own. In the following sequence our vlogger concentrates on the size of the snack she has given her children, without setting the bowl in motion:
(70) //3 then they had a / snack I(71) //4 gave them / each a / bowl - like a heaping / bowl(72) //3 full of / Chex Mix and an(73) //4 applesauce / squeeze and they //
Blogger Comments:
This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Gestures Realising Elements Rather Than Figures.
- then they had a snack
- I gave them each a bowl like a heaping bowl full of Chex Mix and applesauce squeeze
20 April 2024
Gesture Sequence
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 31-2):
As with imagic sequences in film, animations, graphic novels, comics, cartoons and picture books, the gesture sequence does not make explicit the conjunctive relations between events (and so cannot support discourse semantic connexion). These relations have to be abduced (Bateman, 2007) from the sequence and concurring language. In the case of the sequence in (66)–(69), conjunctive relations of time and cause are not made explicit in language either; only the additive linker and is used. A defeasible reading of the sequence is offered in (66'')–(69'').(66'') // and so the dermatologist um took like this needle(temporal sequential)(67'') // and under each like bump(temporal overlapping)(68'') // and injected this like steroid(causal)(69'') // and like it all bubbled up //
Blogger Comments:
This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Abducing Defeasible Conjunctive Relations.
Abductive reasoning allows inferring a as an explanation of b. As a result of this inference, abduction allows the precondition a to be abduced from the consequence b. Deductive reasoning and abductive reasoning thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such, abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent (or Post hoc ergo propter hoc) because of multiple possible explanations for b.
In logic, defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is rationally compelling, though not deductively valid. … Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning, where the reasoning does not produce a full, complete, or final demonstration of a claim, i.e., where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged. In other words, defeasible reasoning produces a contingent statement or claim.
- and so the dermatologist um took like this needle
- and under each like bump (and) injected this like steroid
- and like it all bubbled up
18 April 2024
Occurrences
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 30-1):
Turning from a static to a dynamic perspective, the language of this sequence makes explicit three occurrences (took, injected, bubbled). The paralanguage concurs with these and in addition uses six rapid piercing gestures to make explicit the events implied by the second tone group (67').
In each case the entity indicated by the hand shape is in motion, as the dermatologist picks the needle up, pierces the bumps, injects the steroid and the bump bubbles up.
Blogger Comments:
// and so the dermatologist um took like this needle
// and under each like bump
// and injected this like steroid
// and like it all bubbled up //
Turning from participant elements ("entities") to process elements ("occurrences"), the language of this sequence construes three processes (took, injected, bubbled).
16 April 2024
Commitment
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 30):
In terms of commitment (i.e. the amount of meaning specified across semiotic modes; Martin, 2010; Painter et al., 2013), the ‘dermatologist’ and ‘steroid’ are committed in the language but not the paralanguage; but the ‘needle’ is more delicately committed in the paralanguage as a tiny pointed entity and then as a syringe. And the paralinguistic commitment of the ‘bump’ convergent with (69) in fact takes place two tone groups after it is committed verbally in (67).
Blogger Comments:
This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Martin's Notion Of Commitment.
Instantiation also opens up theoretical and descriptive space for considering commitment (Martin 2008, 2010), which refers to the amount of meaning instantiated as the text unfolds. This depends on the number of optional systems taken up and the degree of delicacy pursued in those that are, so that the more systems entered, and the more options chosen, the greater the semantic weight of a text (Hood 2008).
- assuming that handshape is the only bodily expression of ideational meaning here, and
- analysing at the level of element ("entity") instead of figure (while claiming the latter).
14 April 2024
Entity Concurrence
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 29-30):
By way of illustration we now move to the fifth phase in the vlog, which concerns a visit to the vlogger’s dermatologist (for treatment of granuloma). The sequence of events we are interested in unfolds verbally in tone groups as follows (for the complete text of this phase of the vlog, see Appendix B5):
(66) //3 and so the / dermatologist um / took like this / needle and(67) //3 under / each like / bump and in-(68) //3 jected this like / steroid and it would like(69) //3 all / bubble up… //From the perspective of language, the verbiage in this sequence makes explicit four entities (dermatologist, needle, bump, steroid). The paralanguage uses hand shape to concur with two of these (needle and bump). The ‘needle’ is first rendered as a tiny pointed entity the vlogger holds between thumb and index finger and then with the hand shape used for holding a syringe; the ‘bump’ is not actually visualised until the fourth tone group, where it renders the shape of the steroid bubbling up (Table 1.7). As we can see, the meanings construed in language and paralanguage can either correspond with or complement one another.
Blogger Comments:
This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Misinterpreting The Data.
[3] To be clear, the claim here is that the meaning realised by the handshape "concurs" with the meaning realised by the wordings needle and bump. However, neither of the two handshapes realises needle, since neither handshape depicts a sharply pointed metal stick; see further in [5] below.
- Firstly, the paralanguage gloss confuses content (holding needle, holding syringe) with expression (cupped hands).
- Secondly, the glosses correlate elements ("entities") of language (needle, bump) with figures for paralanguage (holding needle, holding syringe).
- Thirdly, the glosses of the paralanguage content are not motivated by the data. On the basis of both the gestures and the accompanying language, the glosses are more consistently construed along the lines of taking needle and injecting steroid; moreover, the word syringe was not used by the speaker.
[5] To be clear, this handshape does not depict a needle. Instead, the handshape realises the same meaning as the wording took this needle in the figure so the dermatologist took this needle; that is, it realises the nucleus of the figure, Process and Medium. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 156):
Semantically, the nucleus construes the centre of gravity of a figure, the focal point around which the system of figures is organised. When we describe the Medium as "actualising" the Process, we are really saying that the unfolding is constituted by the fusion of the two together — there can be no Process without an element through which this process is translated from the virtual to the actual.
[6] To be clear, this handshape does not depict a needle. Instead, the handshape realises the same meaning as the wording injected steroid in the figure and under each bump injected this steroid; that is, this again realises the the nucleus of the figure. Again the (ellipsed) Agent of this figure, the dermatologist, is represented by the speaker herself.
Note that, on the authors' interpretation, the meaning of the second tone group does not "concur" with the meaning of the co-occurring body language.
[8] To be clear, the handshape depicts the shape of a granuloma as it rises after the injection of the steroid.
- the meanings construed in language and paralanguage neither correspond nor complement one another.
12 April 2024
Representation (Ideational Semovergent Paralanguage)
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 29):
Representation (ideational semovergent paralanguage)From an ideational perspective we need to take into account how spoken language combines entities, occurrences and qualities as figures (ideation). Semovergent paralanguage supports these resources with hand shapes, which potentially concur with entities, and hand/arm motion, which potentially concurs with occurrences (Hood and Hao, 2021); the hand/arm motion is optionally directed, potentially concurring with spatiotemporal direction (i.e. to/from here and there in space, to/from now and then in time). We say ‘potentially concurring’ because ideational paralanguage can be used on its own, without accompanying spoken language; see the discussion of mime in Chapter 7.
Blogger Comments:
This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Ideational Semovergent Paralanguage.
[2] As previously explained, and argued here, Martin's ideational discourse semantic systems of IDEATION and CONNEXION are neither ideational nor semantic, since they are misunderstood rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexical cohesion and cohesive conjunction, which are lexicogrammatical systems of the textual metafunction.
[3] To be clear, this is a matter of language, regardless of whether it is spoken, written or signed.
[4] To be clear, in the discourse semantic system of IDEATION (Martin 1992: 314-9; Martin & Rose 2007: 96), 'entity' refers only to a subtype of Range.
[5] To be clear, in the discourse semantic system of IDEATION (Martin 1992: 314-9; Martin & Rose 2007: 90ff), these are termed 'processes', not 'occurrences'.
[8] The word 'support' here is potentially misleading, since epilinguistic body language makes meaning in its own right.
[9] Here the authors propose 1-to-1 relationships between the expression of body language and the content of language — instead of the content of body language. This confusion leads the authors to the false conclusion at the end of the [2022] paper that body language is just another expression mode of language itself.
Even so, the validity of proposed 1-to-1 relationships will be examined in upcoming posts.
[11] See the upcoming critique of the authors' discussion of 'mime'.
10 April 2024
Semovergent Paralanguage Converging With Discourse Semantics
Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 28-9, 233):
Semovergent paralanguage is convergent with the lexicogrammar and discourse semantics of spoken language (its content plane). We adopt a discourse semantic perspective on these meaning-making resources here (Martin and Rose, [2003] 2007). Drawing on terms from Painter et al. (2013) we can position ideational paralanguage as concurring with IDEATION systems (but not CONNEXION, as will be discussed later), interpersonal paralanguage as resonating with APPRAISAL systems (but not NEGOTIATION, as will be discussed later) and textual body language as coordinating information flow alongside IDENTIFICATION and PERIODICITY²⁸ systems. These convergences are outlined in Table 1.6.
²⁸ Semovergent synchronicity is concerned with the syncing of paralanguage with periodic structure composed above and beyond prosodic phonology.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Seriously Misunderstanding Cléirigh's Epilinguistic Body Language.
[3] It will be seen that the "convergences" that the authors propose are between the expression plane of semovergent paralanguage [epilinguistic body language] and the content plane of language. Here the authors reveal their serious misunderstanding of paralanguage as just an expression plane system. See also from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019):