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')