The Phonological System Of Tonality

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 24):

The phonological system of TONALITY organises spoken language into waves of information called tone groups, with one salient syllable carrying this tone movement. Gestures may be coextensive with this periodic unit. In examples (57) and (58) the vlogger makes a sweeping right-to-left gesture referencing past time; the gestures unfold in sync with the temporal extent of the tone group.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Blurring The Distinction Between Linguistic And Epilinguistic Body Language.

[1] To be clear, here the authors confuse the content plane with the expression plane.  The phonological system of TONALITY is concerned with the duration of the tone group, a phonological unit.  The duration of the tone group realises the duration of the information unit, a grammatical unit.  It is the information unit that constitutes the "wave of information", not the tone group.  This is not a new confusion on Martin's part; Martin (1992: 384) mistakes the system of INFORMATION for a phonological/graphological system.

[2] This is a bare assertion unsupported by evidence, and falsified by the vast majority of gestures that do not extend for the duration of a tone group.  In Cléirigh's model, it is not that gestures tend to be co-extensive with the tone group, but that, when they do, the extent of the gesture has the same function as the extent of a tone group, namely: the realisation of the extent of an information unit.

[3] To be clear, in Cléirigh's model, a gesture that realises the meaning 'past' is epilinguistic body language, not linguistic body language.  In terms of Martin's rebrandings of his source, this is 'semovergent paralanguage', not 'sonovergent paralanguage'.  Metafunctionally, the meaning is interpersonal as well as experiential, since it also means 'past' relative to the time of the speech event.

[4] To be clear, in Cléirigh's model, it is only this aspect of the gesture, its co-extension with a tone group, that constitutes linguistic body language (rebranded by Martin as 'sonovergent paralanguage').  Metafunctionally, the meaning is textual, demarcating a unit of Given and New information.

The Phonological System Of Tone

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 23):

The phonological system of TONE is realised through pitch movement. In example (56) the vlogger’s eyebrows move up in tune with the rising tone (tone 2) on the syllable prev.

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Ignoring Content And Getting The Phonology Wrong.

To be clear, this presents Cléirigh's linguistic body language as the authors' sonovergent paralanguage, though in doing so, the authors only present the expression plane of the system, ignoring the content being realised.

Since this is linguistic body language, the interpersonal meaning that the pitch and eyebrow movement both realise depends on the grammar, the choice of MOOD, which in this instance is declarative:

//4 but /^ I could / not / find the /hair dye that I //2 bought / previously when I //3 dyed my / hair which I //3 loved I //3 loved the/ first time

On Halliday's model, the combination of tone 2 with declarative mood realises a protesting or contradicting statement (Halliday 1994: 305), as in

//2 that / can't be / true // ('so don't try and tell me!')
//2 ^ it / didn't / hurt you ('so don't make a fuss') 

In the authors' data, however, the speaker is not making a protesting or contradicting statement, and so this casts doubt on the phonological analysis. Listening to the data reveals that the pitch movement on the tonic is fairly level, tone 3.

The basic meaning of ('low-rising') tone 3, on the other hand, is that the information being realised is dependent on something else (op. cit.: 303).  In this monologic instance, it could be take to mean 'hold on, there's more to come'.  (In dialogue, tone 3 can function as a as a turn-keeping device: 'I'm not finished yet, so don't interrupt!'.) On this basis, the instance in question is better analysed as an emphatic variant of tone 3, just like the three tones that follow (and also the  preceding "tone 4").

Two trivial errors can be noted:

• the tonic syllable is pre, not prev, and
• a 'rise-fall' eyebrow movement corresponds to tone 5, not tone 2.

Paralanguage Converging With Sound: Sonovergent Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 23, 233):

Sonovergent paralanguage converges with the prosodic phonology of spoken language (Halliday, 1967, 1970a; Halliday and Greaves, 2008; Smith and Greaves, 2015). From an interpersonal perspective, it resonates with tone and involves a body part (e.g. eyebrows or arms) moving up and down in tune with pitch movement in a tone group (TONE and marked salience). From a textual perspective, it involves a body part²³ (e.g. hands, head) moving in sync with the periodicity of speech – which might involve beats aligned with a salient syllable of a foot (which might also be the tonic syllable of a tone group) or a gesture coextensive with a tone group (i.e. in sync with TONALITY, TONICITY or RHYTHM systems). An outline of this sonovergent paralanguage is presented in Table 1.5. …

²³ For wavelengths longer than a tone group, whole body motion is involved.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "sonovergent paralanguage" realises the same lexicogrammatical distinctions as prosodic phonology, which is why Cléirigh termed it linguistic body language, and why it is invalid to model it as paralanguage.

[2] To be clear, this is Cléirigh's description of linguistic body language, misrepresented as the work of the authors — i. e. plagiarism — as demonstrated from the following extract from Cléirigh's notes:

Linguistic Body Language (Body Language)

This is body language that only occurs during speech.  Its kinology involves visible body movements that are in sync with the rhythm or in tune with the (defining) pitch movement of spoken language.  In doing so, the function of such movements is precisely that of the prosodic phonology: rhythm and intonation.

As linguistic, ‘prosodic’ body language is thus:

v  tri-stratal: its kinology realises the lexicogrammar of (adult) language, and

v  metafunctional (textual and interpersonal) in terms of Halliday’s modes of meaning.

 

	lexicogrammar	prosodic expression
		phonology	kinetic
	lexical salience°	rhythm	gesture (hand, head) in sync with the speech rhythm
textual	focus of new information	tonicity	gesture (hand, head) in sync with the tonic placement
	information distribution	tonality	gesture (hand, head) co-extensive with tone group
interpersonal	key	tone	gesture (eyebrow*, hand) in tune with the tone choice

* also: rolling of the eyes for tone 5.

°Halliday (1985: 60):

The function of rhythm in discourse is to highlight content words (lexical items). 

[3] To be clear, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence: the logical fallacy known as ipse dixit. 

∞

See also the comments on the same text in Martin & Zappavigna (2019) at Misrepresenting Cléirigh's Work As The Authors' Work.

The More Transparent Terminology Of 'Sonovergent' And 'Semovergent'

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 22):

The basic distinction here [between ‘linguistic body language’ and ‘epilinguistic body language’] is between paralanguage that converges with the prosodic phonology (i.e. rhythm and intonation) of spoken language and that which converges with meanings made possible by having language. We propose here a more transparent terminology, with phonologically convergent paralanguage referred to as sonovergent and semantically convergent paralanguage as semovergent. This revised terminology is outlined in Table 1.4.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this seriously misunderstands Cléirigh's model. Linguistic body language does not 'converge' with prosodic phonology and it is not paralanguage. On the one hand, linguistic body language diverges from prosodic phonology, since it involves the use of expression modes other than the vocal tract. What linguistic body language does 'converge' with are the lexicogrammatical systems that are realised by prosodic phonology: primarily the systems of INFORMATION and KEY. For these reasons, the term 'sonovergent' is misleading, because it is untrue.

On the other hand, linguistic body language is, as the name implies, language, not paralanguage, since, like prosodic phonology, it is systematically related to the grammar. As Halliday (1989: 30-1) explains:

Prosodic features are part of the linguistic system; they carry systematic contrasts in meaning, just like other resources in the grammar… . Paralinguistic features … are not systematic — they are not part of the grammar, but rather additional variations by which a speaker signals the import of what he is saying.

For this reason, the term 'paralanguage' is also misleading in this case, because it, too, is untrue. Moreover, the fact that sonovergent paralanguage is neither sonovergent nor paralanguage invalidates the authors' (misunderstanding of Cléirigh's) model.

[2] To be clear, this is misleading because it is untrue. The invented words 'sonovergent' and 'semovergent' are not more transparent, since they obscure the criteria that lie behind the terms 'linguistic' and 'epilinguistic'. And as explained above, the term  'sonovergent' is misleading, because it is untrue.

The motivation for the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's terms is simply to misrepresent Cléirigh's work as their own. Plagiarism is effected in myriad small steps in this work.

[3] To be clear, on Cléirigh's model of epilinguistic body language, the "convergent" relation is the realisation relation between the expression and content of body language. In considering epilinguistic body language as paralanguage, the "convergent" relation is between the content of body language and the content of language.

It will be seen that the authors' failure to distinguish levels of symbolic abstraction will lead them to devise semantic networks in which the features are expressions (Figure 4.1 p95, Figure 4.6 p108, Figure 4.7 p110) and semantic networks which combine expression features with content features (Figure 4.2 p101, Figure 4.3 p103, Figures 4.4 and 4.5 p105, Figure 4.8 p111)

[3] Here again the authors misrepresent Cléirigh's model as the work of Zappavigna and Martin (2018), which satisfies the definition of plagiarism.

∞

See also the comments on Martin & Zappavigna (2019):

The Pretext For Rebranding Cléirigh's Body Language Systems As The Authors' Paralanguage Systems

Zappavigna & Martin's ‘Linguistic, ‘Epilinguistic, And Protolinguistic Body Language

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 22, 232-3):

Table 1.3 also provides us with a model for dealing with two dimensions of the relation between language and paralanguage, treated by Zappavigna and Martin (2018) as ‘linguistic body language’ and ‘epilinguistic body language’.²¹

²¹ Zappavigna and Martin’s (2018) dimension of protolinguistic body language has been subsumed in our current model as subtypes of somasis and interpersonal semovergent paralanguage. This avoids the problem of using the term ‘protolinguistic’ for a paralinguistic system making meaning alongside language (protolanguage, as initial emergent semiosis, by definition cannot accompany language), and it makes room for paralinguistic systems enabled by the discourse semantic system of APPRAISAL (see Chapter 2 for further discussion of this point).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here the authors misrepresent Cléirigh's model — protolinguistic, linguistic and epilinguistic body language — as the work of Zappavigna and Martin (2018). Plagiarism is defined as the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Without Cléirigh's model of body language, the authors have no model, that is, nothing to rebrand as their model of paralanguage.

[2] This misunderstands Cléirigh's model. Protolinguistic body language cannot be subsumed as subtypes of somasis. On the one hand, protolinguistic body language is semiotic, whereas somasis is non-semiotic. On the other hand, protolinguistic body language does not require the ontogenesis of language, and is found in other socio-semiotic species, whereas epilinguistic body language ('semovergent paralanguage') does require the ontogenesis of language, and is not found in other socio-semiotic species.

[3] On the one hand, this is misleading because it is untrue. Protolanguage does accompany language, as exemplified by interjections in exclamations. Halliday (1994: 95):

Exclamations are the limiting case of an exchange; they are verbal gestures of the speaker addressed to no one in particular, although they may, of course, call for empathy on the part of the addressee. Some of them are in fact not language but protolanguage, such as Wow!, Yuck!, Aha! and Ouch!.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

Interjections are certainly quite different from adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions; they tend to be protolinguistic remnants in adult languages.

On the other hand, it seriously misunderstands the model that the authors are plagiarising. On Cléirigh's model, protolinguistic, linguistic and epilinguistic systems accumulate in the lifetime of a human meaner, and the question then becomes 'How are the meanings of these different semiotic systems expressed in the gestures and postures of body language?'

[4] To be clear, there is no need to 'make room' for paralinguistic systems enabled by APPRAISAL, since these are, by definition, epilinguistic, and so 'semovergent' in the authors' terms. However, this raises the question of whether the paralinguistic systems that the authors identify are enabled by APPRAISAL, or are they to be found also in other protolinguistic species. And if found also in other protolinguistic species, it raises the question of whether the systems are, in Halliday's model of complexity, semiotic (symbolic value) or social (non-symbolic value), as in the exchange of value in eusocial insect colonies.

Intermodal Convergence

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 20-1):

In their work on intermodal relations in children’s picture books (Painter and Martin, 2012; Painter et al., 2013), Painter and her colleagues suggest a model involving degrees of convergence between verbiage and image. The model is organised by metafunction – degrees of concurrence for ideational meaning, degrees of resonance for interpersonal meaning and degrees of synchronicity for textual meaning (for illustrative text analysis, see Martin 2008; Painter and Martin, 2012). The relevant terminology is presented in Table 1.3. 

Painter and her colleagues’ main concern in proposing this model was to focus on the way in which the meaning potential of written language and images was taken up in picture books – with language and image sometimes doing comparable work, and other times with language making meaning the images did not, or vice versa. … 

For Painter and her colleagues studying the complementary contribution of language and images in picture books means looking closely at the choices instantiated in a bimodal text in relation to those that could have been manifested and carefully considering the commitment of meaning by one modality or the other. This is the perspective we adopt in this monograph as far as the contribution of language and paralanguage to spoken discourse is concerned.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the notion of intermodal convergence is the simplistic idea that the instantiations in different semiotic modes of the one text can be described as 'same' or 'different'. The different terms for different metafunctions all express this one very simple idea.

[2] To be clear, in this monograph, the authors will take the perspective of categorising the instantiations of language and paralanguage as same ('convergent') or different.

It will be seen that the body language the authors rebrand as 'sonovergent paralanguage' actually diverges from the phonology and converges with the lexicogrammar that prosodic phonology realises: primarily the systems of KEY (interpersonal) and INFORMATION (textual). Moreover, in realising the grammar, sonovergent paralanguage is language, not paralanguage (Halliday 1989: 30), which is why the authors' intellectual source, Cléirigh, termed this use of postures and gestures linguistic. Again, this self-contradiction invalidates the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's model.

∞

See also the comments on Martin & Zappavigna (2019) The Notion Of Intermodal Convergence.

Using Halliday's Linear Taxonomy Of Complexity To Classify Somatic Behaviours

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 19-20):

As far as somasis is concerned we have found it useful to draw on Halliday’s (1996) proposals for an evolutionary typology of systems. He recognises four orders of complexity, with semiotic systems evolving out of social systems, social systems out of biological ones and biological ones out of physical ones. 

We have adapted this framework in our classification of somatic behaviour, distinguishing physical activity, biological behaviour and social communion.

Physical activity covers material action involving some change in the relationship of one physical entity to another (walking, running, jumping, throwing, breaking, cutting, digging, pulling etc.). 

Biological behaviour can be divided into changes that restore comfort (sneezing, coughing, scratching, laughing, adjusting garments or hair etc.) and those that index discomfort (nail biting, fiddling, fidgeting, wriggling, blushing, shivering, crying etc.). 

Social communion can be divided into mutual perception (sharing gaze, pitch, proximity, touch, smell etc.) and reciprocal attachment (tickling, cradling, holding hands, hugging, stroking, hugging, kissing, mating etc.). These proposals are outlined in Figure 1.7.

… To put this another way, we are arguing that the behaviours outlined in Figure 1.7 can be treated as paralinguistic or not depending on whether or not they are negotiated as meaningful in interaction.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, non-semiotic behaviour ("somasis") is irrelevant to a model of paralanguage, and it only arises as an issue because the authors give priority the the view 'from below': gestures, in contradistinction to the methodology of SFL Theory, which gives priority to the view 'from above': meaning.

[2] To be clear, Halliday's model is set out in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 508, 509):

Physical systems are just physical systems. Biological systems, however, are not just biological systems; they are at once both biological and physical. Social systems are all three: social, biological and physical. …

A biological system is a physical system with the added component of "life"; it is a living physical system. In comparable terms, a social system is a biological system with the added component of "value" (which explains the need for a synoptic approach, since value is something that is manifested in forms of structure). A semiotic system, then, is a social system with the added component of "meaning".

[3] To be clear, the authors' use of Halliday's model seriously misunderstands it. Halliday's model is concerned with orders of complexity, from atoms to organisms to social structures, where the later orders subsume the earlier orders. The authors' three types of behaviour, in contrast, are mutually exclusive categories of the behaviour of organisms.

[4] To be clear, if any of these behaviours are interpreted as meaning anything other than themselves, then they are interpreted semiotic. Moreover, for Halliday (2004: 18), contrā the authors, 'exchanging attention' is a gloss of the interactional microfunction, and so not only semiotic rather than somatic, but protolanguage.

[5] To be clear, there is no need to argue this, since this is just a definition of (interpersonal) semiosis.

∞

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). See also the comments at:

Confusing Levels Of Complexity With Types Of Behaviour
Interpreting Purportedly Non-Semiotic Behaviours As Semiotic

The Issue Of What Counts As Semiosis And What Does Not

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 18-9):

SFL research on language development in young children has proven a useful starting point for work on paralanguage in two respects. On the one hand, the emergence of the first signs (protolanguage) highlights the issue of what counts as semiosis and what does not. On the other hand, the realisation of these first signs is multimodal – linguistic and paralinguistic resources are not differentiated at this stage. …

The influence of SFL research on the ontogenesis of language on our model of paralanguage is explored in detail in Chapter 2.

One basic challenge that has to be faced when working on paralanguage is how to distinguish it from behaviour – separating semiosis from non-semiosis in other words. …

From this point on we will use the term ‘somasis’ for non-semiotic behaviour (such as sneezing, stretching, scratching an itch and so on) and ‘semiosis’ for systems of signs.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the perspective taken is 'from above': how are these meanings expressed? The issue of what does or does not count as semiosis only arises from taking the opposite perspective 'from below': is or is not this an expression of meaning? That is, the authors have misunderstood SFL methodology, according to which, non-semiotic behaviour is irrelevant to a model of paralanguage.

See also the original comments on this at Misunderstanding The Difference Between Semiosis And Non-Semiosis.

[2] Here yet again, the authors remind the reader that Cléirigh's model of body language is their model of paralanguage. The plagiarism in this work is effected through myriad small steps.

To be clear, it is Cléirigh's model of body language that derives from taking an ontogenetic (and phylogenetic) perspective:

• protolinguistic systems are those that develop before language (and persist thereafter);
• linguistic systems are those that develop as language;
• epilinguistic systems are those that develop after language.

The authors rebrand linguistic body language as sonovergent paralanguage, despite it being neither sonovergent nor paralanguage, which invalidates their rebranding of Cléirigh's model.

The authors rebrand epilinguistic body language as semovergent paralanguage, despite it not being restricted to paralanguage, and include within it protolinguistic body language that is used by species without language, and so is not epilinguistic, and reject the notion of protolinguistic body language, consigning the remainder to non-semiosis, as will be seen.

Interacting Discourse Semantic Resources Realising Register And Genre

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 17-8): 

The discourse semantic resources briefly reviewed here are outlined by metafunction in Figure 1.6. 

Space precludes detailed consideration of the interaction of these systems in the realisation of register and genre (for a discussion of which, see Martin, 1992; Martin and Rose, [2003] 2007, 2008).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the use of the term 'interaction' here betrays Martin's misunderstanding of metafunctions and strata as modules, rather than dimensions. Martin (1992: 390, 488):

Each of the presentations of linguistic text forming resources considered above adopted a modular perspective. As far as English Text is concerned this has two main dimensions: stratification and, within strata, metafunction. …

The problem addressed is a fund[a]mental concern of modular models of semiosis — namely, once modules are distinguished, how do they interface? What is the nature of the conversation among components?

[2] To be clear, the authors think discourse semantics realises register and genre because Martin (1992) misunderstands these functional varieties of language as not language, but the context that is realised in language. Claiming that varieties of language are not language is analogous to claiming that dairy and beef cattle are not cattle. Nevertheless, these non-language systems are instantiated as texts, instances of language, in Martin's model.

For a close examination of Martin's model of context, and the evidence supporting this critique, see here (Martin 1992) and here (Martin & Rose 2007).

Periodicity

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 17):

PERIODICITY comprises resources for composing text as waves of information. The basic idea here is that there is a hierarchy of periodicity, extending from the small wavelengths of tone group and clause up through an indefinite number of indefinitely long phases of discourse. In the example that follows we have a topic sentence introducing what has been happening to the vlogger in parking lots and a retrospective comment on the frequency of this annoying behaviour. A wide range of resources, including text reference (in bold) and generalised ideation (in italics), along with internal conjunction and ideational grammatical metaphor in more abstract registers, cooperate with one another to scaffold information flow along these lines.

(55)

Oh another thing that has been really annoying this summer is 

you know when you go to a parking lot and it’s a busy place. You get in your car and you – you don’t necessarily want to leave immediately. Like you might wanna – I might want to have Henry test his blood sugar, give the kids snacks. Or if we were at the pool, like change or look at my phone or send a text message or whatever. It drives me crazy when a car is like sitting there following you through the parking lot and then they just wait for you to leave. I cannot stand that.

And that has happened so many times.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, PERIODICITY is a discourse semantic system incongruously named after a type of structure instead of a type of meaning. More importantly, it is writing pedagogy misrepresented as linguistic theory, in which

• introductory paragraph is rebranded as macro-Theme,
• topic sentence is rebranded as hyper-Theme (a misunderstanding of Daneš 1974),
• paragraph summary is rebranded as hyper-New, and
• text summary is rebranded as macro-New.

Moreover, its structures are not relations, but single functions. That is:

• macro-Theme does not relate to a macro-Rheme
• hyper-Theme does not relate to a hyper-Rheme
• hyper-New does not relate to a hyper-Given
• macro-New does not relate to a macro-Given.

[2] To be clear, waves in phonology, lexicogrammar and semantics are of different levels of symbolic abstraction. Here that difference is ignored, as if all waves can be compared at the same level.

[3] To be clear, the claim that text reference, "generalised ideation", internal conjunction and ideational grammatical metaphor "scaffold" this type information flow is a bare assertion without supporting evidence: the logical fallacy known as ipse dixit.

Identification: Meaning Beyond The Clause

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 16-7):

In terms of meaning beyond the clause IDENTIFICATION allows us to identify and track indefinitely long phases of discourse; the demonstrative that is used in this way in (54) to reference the ‘national night out’ activities that were soon to get underway

(54)

It is two twenty and I just got out of the shower and I just put some makeup on because it is national night out – and I put a fancy shirt on. I like never wear this. I think I have worn this one time since I got it. I’m usually in like a tank top with sports bra with these like yoga pants. So. But it is National Night Out like I said and our neighbourhood gathers together and we have like a potluck and the police come and the fire truck come and there are neighbours that I see like once a year and I wanted to look – I wanted to look presentable. Different than they normally probably see me every single day walking with the kids. I wanted to look nice.

⇑

So that’s kind of exciting.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, meaning 'beyond the clause' is realised by lexicogrammatical cohesion. In this case, the demonstrative that makes anaphoric reference to the preceding text. This is what Halliday & Hasan (1976: 66) term 'extended reference':

Identification: Lexicogrammatical Diversification

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 16):

The key textual systems are IDENTIFICATION and PERIODICITY. IDENTIFICATION comprises resources for composing discourse with respect to introducing and then tracking entities. In terms of diversification it allows us, for example, to track entities through a range of nominal resources.

(50) Andy went and got it yesterday at the store.

(51) He said not to film it.

(52) Our neighbourhood gathers together.

(53) Amy’s husband did Q-and-As with her.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, IDENTIFICATION is Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexicogrammatical system of cohesive REFERENCE rebranded as Martin's discourse semantic system. However, as demonstrated in great detail here, it is a mass of confusions. For example, Martin's model

• confuses cohesive REFERENCE with the nominal group system of DETERMINATION
• confuses cohesive REFERENCE with LEXICAL COHESION
• confuses the reference item with the referent
• confuses reference in the sense of cohesion with reference in the sense of ideational denotation.

In fact, Martin's system can be interpreted as largely an 'experientialising' of Halliday & Hasan's textual system, as shown by its focus on entities and nominal groups rather than referents and reference items:

• In (50), Andy is an experiential participant ('entity'), but neither a reference item nor a referent.
• In (51), both He and it are experiential participants ('entities'), and reference items without referents.
• In (52), Our is a reference item without a referent.
• In (53), Amy's husband is an experiential participant, with neither reference item nor referent. The reference item here is her and its referent is (ambiguously) Amy's.

Appraisal: Meaning Beyond The Clause

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 16):

In terms of meaning beyond the clause APPRAISAL allows us, for example, to evaluate indefinitely long phases of discourse. The extended connexion example we used as (25) earlier does more than elaborate a proposition; it also positions viewers to bond attitudinally in a specific way around a recurring parking lot event.

(25')

Oh another thing that has been really annoying this summer is –

⇓

you know when you go to a parking lot and it’s a busy place. You get in your car and you don’t necessarily want to leave immediately. Like you might want to – I might want to have Henry test his blood sugar, give the kids snacks. Or if we were at the pool, like change or look at my phone or send a text message or whatever. It drives me crazy when a car is like sitting there following you and then they just wait for you to leave.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, for Halliday (2008: 179), ATTITUDE is a grammatical system realised by the selection of lexical items, so any meaning 'beyond the clause' is realised textually through lexical cohesion.

[2] To be clear, APPRAISAL is enacted in the unfolding of discourse, the creation of text, logogenesis.

[3] To be clear, this instance is not the elaboration of a proposition. Ideationally, it is the elaboration of a Value by a Token, where, textually, the Value is the point of departure for the Token. Interpersonally, the clause realises a single proposition, with several clauses embedded in the Complement realising several propositions.

Appraisal: Grammatical Metaphor

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 16):

In terms of grammatical metaphor APPRAISAL allows us to realise feelings as if they were things and deploy them accordingly.

(48) He was angry because she was sitting in her car. (congruent adjectival feeling)
(49) His anger prompted her departure. (metaphorical nominalised feeling)

Blogger Comments:

[1] As was the case for NEGOTIATION, it is not the interpersonal system of APPRAISAL that enables ("allows") grammatical metaphor. In any case, the grammatical metaphor here is ideational ("feelings as things"), not interpersonal.

[2] To be clear, adjectives, like nouns, are nominals. The reason this instance is congruent is that a semantic element, an emotive quality of projection (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 209-10), is realised grammatically as a nominal group serving as Attribute.

[3] To be clear, the reason this instance is metaphorical is that a semantic element, a process or quality of emotion, is realised grammatically by a noun serving as the Thing of a nominal group. This ideational metaphor, therefore, is not enabled by the interpersonal system of APPRAISAL.

Appraisal: Lexicogrammatical Diversification

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 15):

APPRAISAL comprises resources for enacting social relations by sharing attitudes (Martin and White 2005). In terms of diversification it allows us, for example, to realise affect across a range of grammatical structures:

(43) Regrettably she left the parking lot.
(44) She regretfully left the parking lot.
(45) She’s regretful because she left the parking lot.
(46) Our regretful vlogger swore not to do it again.
(47) She regretted her behaviour.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, for Halliday (2008: 49, 179), the system of APPRAISAL is a lexicogrammatical system that shades the borderline between grammar and lexis, within which ATTITUDE is a grammatical system realised by the selection of lexical items:

With options in the way something is evaluated (“I approve / I disapprove”), or contended (“I agree / I disagree”), the borderline between grammar and lexis is shaded over; systems of APPRAISAL, as described by Martin & White (2005), represent more delicate (more highly differentiated) options within the general region of evaluation. … [ATTITUDE] is a grammatical system that is realised by a selection of lexical items. 

This is borne out by the authors' examples, which show AFFECT realised by lexical items in different grammatical structures.

Negotiation: Meaning Beyond The Clause

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 15):

In terms of meaning beyond the clause NEGOTIATION allows us to relate moves in conversation, including moves comprising several clauses (as in the following request and compliance sequence):

(42)

Tell us why you left the parking lot.

⇓⇑

- I had just got in my car, got my phone and as I was doing that some guy was sitting there and there was cars behind him and he was like [mimics man’s gesture and expression] like waving me out.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, NEGOTIATION "allows us" linguists to group moves in conversation — in terms of initiation and response.

As previously noted, NEGOTIATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION. The system and types of response are provided in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 136-7):

Importantly, there is no interpersonal meaning 'beyond the clause' in this constructed example. That is, the interpersonal meaning of the initiating move, a command, realised by a clause, does not extend beyond into the responding move, an undertaking, realised by a clause complex. Any meaning 'beyond the clause' is realised by the textual system of cohesion.