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. 

…

[2] To be clear, interpersonal semovergent paralanguage is the authors' rebranding of the interpersonal dimension of Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language.

[3] Here again the authors are looking to match semantic stratum systems instantiated in spoken language to expression plane instances of body language, instead of asking what linguistic meanings, of any mode, are being realised in body language expressions.  It will be seen that this procedural error leads the authors to wrongly conclude (Table 6, p28) that all paralanguage is an expression of language itself.

[4] Correcting for the error identified in [3], this claim becomes, in more coherent theoretical terms:

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.

However, since, in Cléirigh's model, the meanings of APPRAISAL can be instantiated both protolinguistically and epilinguistically, as well as linguistically, it will be seen that almost all of the instances to be discussed cannot be accurately described as epilinguistic ("semovergent").

[5] To be clear, with regard to the APPRAISAL system of AFFECT, emotional reactions only appraise if they enact an interpersonal assessment.  For example, the clause that surprised me construes an emotional reaction, but it does not in itself, even implicitly, enact a positive or negative assessment.

[6] To be clear, the APPRAISAL system of JUDGEMENT is not limited to assessing 'character'.  For example, the clause capitalism is immoral enacts a judgement, but not of 'character'.

[7] To be clear, the APPRAISAL system of APPRECIATION is not limited to assessing 'things', either in the narrow sense of non-conscious material objects, or in the wider semantic sense in contrast to 'quality'.  For example:

• 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.

[8] On the one hand, this confuses the construal of experience as emotion (ideational metafunction) with the enactment of intersubjective relations through AFFECT (interpersonal metafunction), the latter being assessments made on the basis of emotion, such as She loves synchronised swimming.

On the other hand, this is misleading, because it falsely claims that paralanguage, in the authors' own terms, cannot realise the same meanings as tsk! tsk! (negative JUDGEMENT) or wow! (positive APPRECIATION).

…

[10] The misunderstandings involved in the discussion of 'emblems' are very instructive, and will be examined in situ.

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).

So, for example, a satirist who imitates the indexical features of say, Donald Trump, is indicating that his projection is to be understood as a projection of Donald Trump.

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.

[1] To be clear, here the authors propose a relation ('support') between the expression of one semiotic system, body language (direction of gesture movement), and the content of language ('direction in space or time').  That is, the authors are not concerned here with the content of body language itself.

[2] To be clear, here the authors interpret the direction of these two gestural motions as ideational in function, contradicting their previous (pp8-9) interpretation of it as textual in function:

In examples (2) and (3) the vlogger makes a sweeping right-to-left gesture referencing past time;

This same confusion is also found in the discourse semantic system of IDENTIFICATION (Martin 1992), where textual reference is confused with  reference in the sense of ideational denotation; evidence here.

[3] Here the authors deploy the logical fallacy known as begging the question (petitio principii), since they assume the very point that they are trying to make: that a gestural movement to the right signifies a "movement" to the future.

[4] To be clear, the claim here is that the direction of the body language gesture to the right agrees (is 'concurrent') with the meaning realised by the wording next time, which the authors interpret as 'movement toward the future'.

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.

[5] To be clear, on the authors' model, a handshape realises an entity.  Since no entity is identified here, and the function is said to be textual rather than ideational, the conclusion must be that a pointed hand is not a handshape.

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.

To be clear, the hand is always shaped in some way. The semiotic question is whether or not the shape means something other than itself.  

The authors' (unsupported) declaration that handshapes "concur" with linguistic elements ("entities") ignores the meaning of all the handshapes that violate that stipulation, such as those depicted in [(74)].  

So in this instance, the authors' failure to identify body language meaning is presented, instead, as just one way that the body language system works.

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.

[1] To be clear, epilinguistic body language (rebranded here as 'semovergent paralanguage') is potentially expressed through the whole body, not just through handshapes and their movements.

[2] To be clear, the timing of these gestures functions as linguistic body language (rebranded here as sonovergent paralanguage'), since they beat with the rhythm of the speech, the first on the salient syllable hea-, the second on the tonic bowl, the focus of New information.

[3] To be clear, this demonstrates that these gestures realise elements rather than figures, the latter being what the authors claim to be analysing. These two very rapid gestures are made while the speaker utters the two words heaping and bowl, suggesting that they realise the semantic elements Quality (sense-measurement) and Thing (non-conscious material object) in parallel with the meaning realised in the wording.

[4] To be clear, this is not a sequence.  The two figures

• then they had a snack
• I gave them each a bowl like a heaping bowl full of Chex Mix and applesauce squeeze

are not structurally (logically) related into a sequence.  Any implicit relation between them is a cohesive (textual) relation between messages.

Moreover, the [four] tone groups presented as a sequence are further misanalysed for tonality [and tonicity].  [(71) actually comprises [two] tone groups, with tonic prominence [in (72)] on Mix, highlighting [it] as a Focus of New information.

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.

[1] To be clear, here the authors are concerned with the expansion relations between the meaning realised by gestures, not with identifying any gestures that might realise such expansion relations.

[2] The problem with abductive reasoning is that it is formally equivalent to a logical fallacy:

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.

[3] To be clear, here the authors are abducing the expansion relations between figures in a sequence of language and claiming that such relations also apply to the meanings realised in body language, despite the fact that there are no gestural realisations of any of these relations, let alone gestural distinctions between temporal and causal relations.

The reason why it is possible to interpret implicit expansion relations in language is that there are linguistic agnates that can be used to demonstrate that the same meaning is being construed.  In the case of and, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 487) have already done the work for us:

However, in the case of body language, the authors have provided no gestural agnates that can be used to demonstrate that the same meaning is being construed by the complete absence of such gestures.

[4] To be clear, 'defeasible' means open in principle to revision, valid objection, forfeiture, or annulment, and this is certainly the case here, as demonstrated below.  Moreover:

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.

[5] Here the authors confuse phonology (tone groups) with semantics (sequences of figures).  This is a sequence of three figures:

1. and so the dermatologist um took like this needle
2. and under each like bump (and) injected this like steroid
3. and like it all bubbled up

The expansion relation between 1 and 2 and between 2 and 3 is temporal: different: later ('and then').  Abducing the second relation as causal: reason ('and so') is feasible, though more defeasible.

Note that the authors' 'temporal overlapping' analysis mistakenly relates the circumstance of the figure to the Nucleus of the same figure.

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:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): An Instance Of Semovergent Paralanguage That Isn't Semovergent.

Reminder:

// 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 //

[1] Translating into SFL theory, this becomes:

Turning from participant elements ("entities") to process elements ("occurrences"), the language of this sequence construes three processes (took, injected, bubbled).

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, here the meanings of paralanguage do not "concur" with the meanings of language.  That is, this "semovergent" paralanguage is not semovergent.  The unfolding gestures realise the dermatologist taking a needle then pricking six granulomas.  This does not concur with and under each like bump, nor with and injected this like steroid (the latter meaning being realised by the entirely different gesture depicted in [68]).

[3] As previously explained, if these elements are considered in terms of the functions they serve in a figure, then the moving handshape realises the nucleus of the figure, the Process and the Medium through which the Process is actualised, with the speaker representing the Agent (dermatologist) of the first two figures.

Why Martin's Notion Of Commitment Is Invalid

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.

[1] To be clear, Martin's notion of 'commitment' is invalidated by the fact that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the system network, namely: that a speaker can choose the degree of delicacy to be instantiated during logogenesis.  As Martin (2011: 255-6) explains:

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).

To be clear, a system network is not a type of flowchart, such that instantiation involves a movement through more and more delicate systems.  A system network is a network of relations.  In the case of lexicogrammar, the system specifies how all the features are related to each other, such that the instantiation of each lexical item in a text is the instantiation of all the features that specify it, from the most general all the way to the most delicate.

In short, Martin misconstrues what the linguist can do — decide on the degree of delicacy "pursued" in analysing a text — as what a speaker can do; but see also [3] below.

[2] Translating into SFL theory, the claim here is that the meanings 'dermatologist' and 'steroid' are instantiated in the language but not in paralanguage.  However, this is manifestly untrue.  As previously explained, the body of the speaker herself represented the dermatologist in two figures ('taking the needle' and 'injecting the steroid').

The instantiation of the meaning 'steroid' is more subtle.  Because, as Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 156) point out, a Process requires a Medium for its actualisation, the gesture representing the 'injecting' Process implicates a Medium, and so the meaning 'fluid' is at least implicated in the gesture, even if the meaning 'steroid' is not precisely specified.  (Try gesturing the meaning 'steroid'.)

To be clear, the authors' false claim derives from two procedural errors:

• 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).

[3] As explained in [1], Martin's notion of "more delicate commitment" is nonsensical, based as it is on his misunderstanding of what system networks represent.

However, here it can also be seen that Martin confuses 'delicacy' as a scale of decreasing generality in system networks with 'delicacy' as a scale of decreasing generality in construing experience as meaning, as in 'needle' vs 'tiny pointed entity'.   It can also be seen that, even in these terms, the authors have the relation backwards, since 'tiny pointed entity' is a more general construal than 'needle', not more delicate, since, as a class, it includes a broader range of potential members.

[4] To be clear, the word 'syringe' is not instantiated in the data.  It appears only in the authors' gloss of the body language accompanying the wording and injected this like steroid.

[5] As explained in the previous post, the reason why this gesture is made with the final figure, and not the second, is that it realises the nucleus of the final figure, it all bubbled up, rather than the meaning of the word bump in the second figure.  The authors' confusion again arises from analysing isolated elements instead of their functions in figures.

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.

…

[2] Having introduced the data in terms of two higher orders of phenomenon in Halliday & Matthiessen's ideational semantics, sequence and figure, the authors actually analyse the data in terms of the lowest order, element.

[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.  

[4] There are several inconsistencies in [Table 1.7].

• 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.

Note that the Agent of this figure, the dermatologist, is represented by the speaker herself.

[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.

[7] In this instance the handshape does depict one of the bumps (granulomas).  However, the reason why this gesture is made with the final figure, and not the second, is that it realises the nucleus of the final figure, and like it all bubbled up, rather than the meaning of the word bump in the second figure.

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.

[9] To be clear, the superficiality of this claim can be made more explicit by considering what it rules out:  

• the meanings construed in language and paralanguage neither correspond nor complement one another.

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.

[1] To be clear, 'semovergent paralanguage' is the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language.

[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'.

[6] This is very misleading.  To be clear, 'figure' is a type of phenomenon in the (genuinely) ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 48).  It does not feature in the discourse semantic system of IDEATION in Martin (1992).  Martin & Rose (2007: 74) introduce the term 'figure' without acknowledging their source and without integrating it into their model of IDEATION.  Moreover, because Martin's IDEATION is a rebranded misunderstanding of lexical cohesion, it cannot be integrated into their model in a theoretically consistent way.

…

[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.

[10] Here the authors mislead the reader by presenting a claim of Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language as if it is their own.

[11] See the upcoming critique of the authors' discussion of 'mime'.

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.

[2] This slightly altered from Martin & Zappavigna (2019), but see the original comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019):

• Ideational Semovergent Paralanguage Concurring With Ideation And Connexion
• Interpersonal Paralanguage Resonating With Negotiation And Appraisal
• Textual Paralanguage "Syncing" With Identification And Periodicity

[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):

• The Argument That Paralanguage Is An Expression System Of Language
• Paralanguage As Language Expression

Prosodic Phonology Demarcating Somatic From Semiotic Behaviour

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 26-8):

The contribution of sonovergent paralanguage to the vlog is interrupted in tone group 19 of Appendix B3, suspended for tone groups 20–24 and resumes for tone group 25 (examples (61)–(65)) – to allow for a somatic phase during which the vlogger uses her left hand to scratch her right arm. This phase unfolds as follows:

(61) //3 lighter than it / was a few / days ago

(62) //1 ^ but / yeah it’s

(63) //1 such a / bummer and then I

(64) //2 went to / Target

(65) //3 ^ like / two days / later and there was a //

The vlogger stops looking at her followers and begins scratching in the final foot of (61'). The scratching and absence of gaze continues for two tone groups ((62')–(63')). Gaze resumes in the final foot of (64'). And the vlogger then resumes gesturing in (65'). 

It is interesting to note that the vlogger does not scratch in sync with the RHYTHM, TONICITY and TONALITY of the text; the scratching lasts for two and a half tone groups and does not match the timing of salient and tonic syllables. But the paralanguage remains in sync, stopping precisely at the tonic syllable of (61') (/ days ago //), resuming with a smile precisely at the tonic syllable of (64') (/ Target //) and resuming with gesture precisely at the beginning of (65'). This indicates that synchronicity with prosodic phonology can function as a demarcating criterion for distinguishing somatic from semiotic behaviour.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Interpreting Averted Gaze As Non-Semiotic.

[1] To be clear, 'sonovergent paralanguage' is the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's linguistic body language.

[2] Here the authors interpret the breaking of eye-contact with the addressee as non-semiotic behaviour (somasis). The problem with this is that breaking eye-contact with the addressee is just as meaningful (semiotic) as maintaining eye-contact.  In Cléirigh's original model, these are features of protolinguistic body language, the opposition being a human variant of the type of body language also recognisable in other species.

[3] This is hardly surprising, given that scratching an itch is not linguistic body language. In Peircean semiotics, a scratch might be interpreted as an indexical sign, indicating an itch or nervousness.

[4] To be clear, in Cléirigh's original model, a smile is another example of protolinguistic body language, interpreted as a threat in some social species. 

[5]  To be clear, the claim here is that the mere fact that gestures are speech-timed distinguishes them from non-semiotic behaviour.  The reason this is untrue is that, in Cléirigh's original model, only one of the three types of body language, linguistic body language, is speech-timed.  Consequently, 'synchronicity' merely distinguishes linguistic body language from everything else, whether semiotic (protolinguistic or epilinguistic body language) or non-semiotic ('somasis')

Super-Salience

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 25-6):

Salient syllables other than the tonic syllable can be given additional prominence (super-salience) through various means. In (14') the vlogger’s pitch on the first tone group is unusually high, and contrasts with the descending lower pitch of the following tone group (a sing/song effect). We use upward and downward arrows, ‘↑’ and ‘↓’, to signal pronounced salience of this kind.

(14''') 

//3 ↑ hopefully next / time I will

//1 get my / ↓hair colour / back //

And the vlogger’s eyebrows move up in tune and in sync with the higher pitch on / hopefully /, before lowering again by the end of the following tone group.

The same sing/song effect follows on and culminates this section of the vlog, with a high pitch on the tonic syllable / now // contrasting with the low pitch on / do //. The vlogger’s eyebrows once again move up and down in tune and in sync with the contrasting pitch salience (this time on contrasting tonic syllables).

//3 [handclap] / um /but for / ↑now 

//3 This will / ↓do //

These rhythmic in-tune gestures reinforce the attitudinal import of the RHYTHM and TONICITY.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Misunderstanding Rhythm And Tonicity.

[1] It will be seen below that not one of syllables discussed here is a non-tonic salient syllable.

[2] Here the authors confuse the textual function of phonological prominence with the interpersonal function of pitch movement.

[3] This misunderstands the data.  The "sing/song" effect is a result of the tone sequence 3^13; see [4].

[4] This analysis misrepresents the data.  What the speaker actually intones can be phonologically represented as:

//3 hopefully / next time I  will
//13 get my / hair colour / back //

Regarding the first of these, contrary to the authors' claims, even on their own analysis, time is not a salient syllable, and listening to the data reveals that the "unusually high pitch" extends throughout the tone group, rather than just for the word time.

With regard to the second tone group, contrary to the authors' claims, hair is a tonic syllable, not a non-tonic salient syllable.  This is because hair is the first tonic in a compound tone group.

[5] This claim is manifestly untrue, since if the eyebrows stay raised for two tone groups, it is neither "in sync" with one tone group (TONALITY) nor "in tune" with the major pitch movements (TONE) of the two tone groups: level/low rise – fall – level/low rise.

This is a case of the authors misrepresenting the data in order to make them fit their misunderstandings of Cléirigh's model.

[6] This "same sing/song" effect is this time simply a result of the tone sequence 3^1-.  What the speaker actually intones can be phonologically represented as:

//3 um /but for / now //1- this will / do //

That is, the handclap co-occurs with the tonic of the previous tone group, back, and the tone of the second tone group here is a narrow fall (1-), not a level/low-rise (3).

[7] Here the authors make a brave stab at guessing what these "rhythmic in-tune" gestures might mean.  But the truth lies elsewhere.

Firstly, this is potentially misleading.  On Cléirigh's original model, it is only the rhythmic dimension or aspect of a gesture that functions textually like the rhythm of speech, and it is only the rise/fall dimension or aspect of a gesture that functions interpersonally like the pitch movement of speech.  Other dimensions or aspects of a gesture may serve additional functions.

Secondly, the notion of 'import' here derives from the work of Martinec (and possibly van Leeuwen), but the authors present it as their own.

Thirdly, the notion of attitudinal import is inappropriate here for two reasons:

• attitude is concerned with interpersonal meaning whereas rhythm and tonicity are concerned with textual meaning, and
• there are no instances of attitude in the instances of text under discussion.

Fourthly, as previously explained, the tonic marks the focus of New information, and the non-tonic salient syllables identify the potential foci of New information that the speaker chose not to instantiate.

The Phonological System Of Rhythm

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 25):

The phonological system of RHYTHM is realised in English through the timing of the salient syllables beginning each foot (relatively equal timing between salient syllables in a stress-timed language like English). In (60), the vlogger beats with her hands in time with the salient syllables of the feet / not /, / find the / and / hair dye that I /. The last of these beats in fact syncs with the tonic syllable hair.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Not Recognising The Function Of Gestural Rhythm.

To be clear, the authors here do not identify the function of the rhythm of these gestures (but see the following post).  In the authors' source, Cléirigh's model of linguistic body language, the rhythm serves the same function as the rhythm of speech in Halliday's theory.  That is, the beats identify the potential tonics, those that speaker chose not to instantiate (select); so in terms of the grammar, they realise the potential foci of New information, those that speaker chose not to instantiate (select).

The Phonological System Of Tonicity

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 24-5):

The phonological system of TONICITY highlights a peak of informational prominence by positioning the major pitch movement of a tone group (its tone) on one or another of its salient syllables (its culminative salient syllable in the unmarked case). In example (59) the vlogger claps on the syllable realising the tone group’s major pitch movement – hair.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019):  Misrepresenting Tonicity.

[1] To be clear, TONICITY is concerned with tonic prominence, not with the major pitch movement (TONE) of the tone group.

[2] To be clear, tonic prominence (phonology) realises the focus of New information (grammar).

[3] To be clear, in the unmarked case, tonic prominence falls on the salient syllable (the tonic syllable) of the last foot (the tonic foot) of a tone group; but there are many unmarked cases.  The 'culminative' syllable is the tonic syllable, wherever it occurs in a tone group.

[4] To be clear, in Cléirigh's model of linguistic body language, the clap on the tonic prominence is the expression plane realisation of the focus of New information in the grammar.