Multiple Dimensions Of Paralanguage Converging On The Same Tone Group

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 40-1):

Although presented as a simple taxonomy, all five subtypes of paralanguage can combine with one another in support of a single tone group.

Several examples of multiple dimensions of paralanguage converging on the same tone group were in fact presented earlier (e.g. the combination of motion towards the future and pointing deixis in Example (69) of Section 1.5.2.1). 

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Multiple Dimensions Of Paralanguage Converging On The Same Tone Group.

[1] To be clear, this is Cléirigh's original model misleadingly presented as if it is a claim of the authors.

[2] As previous posts have demonstrated, this is not true of epilinguistic body language ("semovergent paralanguage"), which can be instantiated with or without language.  The authors have tried to mislead the reader, in this regard, by simply presenting all the text accompanying body language with tone group boundaries (//).

[3] For the misunderstandings and misrepresentations involved in the authors' analysis of this instance, see the two previous posts:

• Gestural Motion "Supporting" Direction In Space Or Time
• Introducing And Tracking Entities Through Finger Pointing

Taxonomy Of Sonovergent And Semovergent Paralinguistic Systems

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 40-1):

The sonovergent and semovergent paralinguistic systems discussed thus far are outlined in Figure 1.9.

Blogger Comment

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). The comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019) can be read here: Taxonomy Of Sonovergent And Semovergent Paralanguage. 

In addition, in this later publication, references to Cléirigh’s original model have been deliberately removed. Cf. Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 20, 24):

The sonovergent and semovergent paralinguistic systems discussed thus far are outlined in Fig. 38 (including cross-references to Cléirigh’s original terminology).

Again, the plagiarism in this work is effected through myriad small steps.

The Semovergent Paralanguage Of PERIODICITY

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 39-40):

As noted in Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.3, however, the vlogger does end the phase with a contrasting high then lowered pitch. The higher pitch penultimate tone group begins rhythmically speaking with a handclap foot and then a foot comprising the ‘filler’ / um /.

This is followed by the low pitch tone group; the vlogger is winding down. Following this there is a suspension of both language and paralanguage as her eyes shut and her head slumps forward (88).

The preceding phase to the one we are using to explore sonovergence here ends in a similar way (lowered pitch, with eyes shut, head down). So shutting down language and paralanguage and handing over to somasis is clearly a strategy for punctuating longer waves of discourse. It is at these points that the vlogger cuts from one filmic segment to the next (as she thinks of something more to say).

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Semovergent Paralanguage Of PERIODICITY.

[1] As previously explained here, in this instance, the authors mistook a (misanalysed) sequence of tones (language) as voice quality (paralanguage).  On Cléirigh's original model, any gestures consistent with the tone choices are instances of linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage), the concern of the present discussion.

[2] Here again, as above, the authors mistake a tone choice for paralanguage, and mistake the "sonovergent" gestures that are "in tune" with the pitch movement as "semovergent".

[3] The unarguable claim here is that ending discourse ('shutting down language and paralanguage and handing over to somasis') is one way ('strategy') of ending discourse ('punctuating longer waves of discourse').

∞

More to the point, the authors are here claiming to present paralinguistic examples of "longer waves of discourse".  In Martin & Rose (2007: 187-218), these are modelled in terms of:

• macro-Theme (introductory paragraph),
• hyper-Theme (topic sentence),
• hyper-New (paragraph summary), and
• macro-New (text summary).

To be clear, the authors have not identified any of the above in the text, and have not identified any semovergent paralanguage "in sync" with them.  Instead, the authors have merely mistaken intonation as paralanguage, and interpreted the unmarked tone for declaratives, tone 1 (and accompanying gestures) as "punctuating" a longer (unnamed) wave of discourse, while ignoring all the other instances of tone 1 (and accompanying gestures) at "non-punctuating" points in the discourse.

Again, the authors have tried to fit the data to their theory, instead of using theory to account for data.

Longer Wavelengths Of Information Flow

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 39, 233):

As far as longer wavelengths of information flow are concerned,³³ our vlogger is seated, and so whole body movement from one location to another is not a factor (as it would be, e.g. for a lecturer roaming to and fro across a stage; cf. Hood, 2011; Hood and Maggora, 2016).

³³ van Leeuwen (1985, 1992) and Martinec (2002) argue that SFL’s phonological hierarchy can be pushed up several wavelengths beyond the tone group; their work suggests that higher-level rhythm would converge with higher-level periodicity in Martin’s (1992) framework.

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Claim That Units Of Speech Rhythm Realise Elements Of Writing Pedagogy.

To be clear, the claim here is that proposed higher level phonological units "converge" with Martin's discourse semantic functions of macro-Theme, hyper-Theme, hyper-New and macro-New.  There are several obvious theoretical inconsistencies here.

The over-arching inconsistency is that the authors are proposing that patterns of speech rhythm correspond to pedagogical suggestions on how to write.  This is because Martin's four discourse semantic functions are actually rebrandings of introductory paragraph, topic sentence, paragraph summary and text summary, as previously explained.

A second inconsistency is that speech rhythm can only identify potential New information, and bears no systematic relation to thematicity.

A third inconsistency is that the use of gesture to realise New information is linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

A fourth inconsistency is the matching of structural units (wavelengths beyond the tone group) with elements of structure (Themes and News).

A fifth inconsistency, in the authors' own terms, is the use of their term for a relation between the same stratum of different semiotic systems, converge, for an interstratal relation within language.

Identification

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 38-9):

As far as pointing deixis is concerned we can return to the examples contrasting past and future in Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.1. The vlogger’s hand points to the past in (58'), and alongside motioning to the future both the vlogger’s index fingers point there (14'''').

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Introducing And Tracking Entities Through Finger Pointing.

[1] To be clear, the authors' claim (ibid.) is that:

From a textual perspective we need to take into account how spoken language introduces entities and keeps track of them once there (IDENTIFICATION) …

Clearly, because 'past' and 'future' are temporal locations, they are not entities, and pointing gestures do not introduce them as entities, nor keep track of them through the discourse.  This is another instance of the authors misrepresenting the data to fit their theory.

Note also that the unit of IDENTIFICATION in Martin (1992) and Martin & Rose (2007) is participant, not entity.

[2] Once again the authors present a tone group that is … wrongly analysed for tonicity (the tonic falls on next, not time).

Textual Semovergent Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 38, 233):

From a textual perspective³² we need to take into account how spoken language introduces entities and keeps track of them once there (IDENTIFICATION) and how it composes waves of information in tone groups, clauses and beyond (PERIODICITY). Semovergent paralanguage potentially supports these resources with pointing gestures and whole body movement and position.

³² Martinec (1998) interprets textual meaning as realised through cohesion, following Halliday and Hasan (1976); as introduced earlier for this monograph we follow Martin (1992) who reinterprets cohesion as discourse semantics (Martin, 2014), organised metafunctionally in Martin and Rose ([2003] 2007) as ideational resources (IDEATION, CONNEXION), interpersonal resources (NEGOTIATION, APPRAISAL) and textual resources (IDENTIFICATION, PERIODICITY).

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Textual Semovergent Paralanguage.

[1] To be clear, despite this claim, it will be seen that the authors provide no instances of semovergent paralanguage in this paper that either introduce entities or keep track of them.

Moreover, IDENTIFICATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) grammatical cohesive systems of REFERENCE and ELLIPSIS-&-SUBSTITUTION, misunderstood, confused with ideational denotation and the interpersonal DEIXIS of nominal group structure, and relocated to discourse semantics; evidence here.

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, this confuses content (information) with expression (tone group), following Martin (1992: 384).  On the other hand, on Cléirigh's original model, any aspect of body language that highlights the focus of New information, or delineates a unit of information, functions as linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

[3] To be clear, PERIODICITY is Martin and Rose's (2003, 2007) reinterpretation of what Martin (1992: 393) models as interstratal interaction patterns as a textual systems of Martin's discourse semantic stratum.  However, Martin's model misrepresents writing pedagogy as linguistic theory, such that:

• introductory paragraph is rebranded as macro-Theme,
• topic sentence is rebranded as hyper-Theme,
• paragraph summary is rebranded as hyper-New, and
• text summary is rebranded as macro-New.

It will be seen that, unsurprisingly, the authors provide no instances of semovergent paralanguage in this paper that 'compose waves of information', let alone gestural realisations of introductory paragraphs, topic sentences, paragraph summaries or text summaries.

[4] To be clear, here Martin and his former student follow Martin (1992) in rebranding misunderstandings Halliday & Hasan's (1976) non-structural textual systems of lexicogrammar as structural discourse semantic systems across three metafunctions.

[5] To be clear, IDEATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) textual system of LEXICAL COHESION, misunderstood, confused with logical relations between experiential elements of nominal group structure, also misunderstood, and relocated to discourse semantics as an experiential system; evidence here.

[6] To be clear, CONNEXION does not feature in Martin and Rose (2007), or in Martin (1992). The term 'CONNEXION' is a rebranding of Martin's CONJUNCTION by Martin's former student, Hao. CONJUNCTION is Martin's misunderstanding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) textual lexicogrammatical system of cohesive conjunction as a logical system at the level of discourse semantics.  Moreover, it confuses non-structural textual relations with structural logical relations, and misunderstands and misapplies the expansion relations involved; evidence here.

That is to say, CONJUNCTION was the only one of Halliday and Hasan's cohesive systems that Martin neglected to rebrand as his own system, and this oversight was finally addressed by his former student.

[7] To be clear, NEGOTIATION is Martin's (1992) rebranding of Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION.

Voice Quality

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 38):

Voice quality was noted in Section 1.5.1 in relation to the sing/song pitch (high then low) movement the vlogger uses in her last four tone groups to close down her hair dye narrative. From the perspective of APPRAISAL the sound quality resonates with her feeling that she is resigned to her current hair colour, at least for now. Work on this interpersonal aural dimension of paralanguage, drawing on van Leeuwen (1999), will be further explored in Chapter 5.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Mistaking Language (Intonation) For Paralanguage (Voice Quality).

[1] Here the authors mistake prosodic features (the TONE sequence 3^13^3^1–) for a paralinguistic feature ("sing/song" voice quality).  Halliday (1985: 30-1) explains the difference as follows:

 

Moreover, if what the authors regard as "sing/song" pitch:

//3 hopefully / next ↑time I will 
//1 get my / ↓hair colour / back 
//3 um / but for / ↑now 
//3 this will / ↓do //

is compared with an accurate phonological analysis:

//3 hopefully / next time I will
//13 get my / hair colour / back
//3 um /but for / now 
//1- this will / do //

It can be seen that:

• the first ↑ corresponds to the low-rising pitch of tone 3,
• the first ↓ corresponds to the falling pitch of tone 1,
• the second ↑ corresponds to the low-rising pitch of tone 3, and
• the second ↓ corresponds to the narrow falling pitch of tone 1–

[2] To be clear, it is only the final TONE selection, tone 1–, that coincides with the APPRAISAL that the authors interpret as 'resignation' (this will do).  In SFL theory, the selection of tone 1– with declarative MOOD realises the KEY features 'mild or expected'.  Halliday (1970: 31):

Meaning of secondary tones In some cases the difference between a pair, or set, of secondary tones is mainly a matter of 'key', the degree of forcefulness or emotional intensity of the utterance. …

1. (medium), neutral; 1+ (wide), strong or unexpected; 1– (narrow), mild or expected.

On this basis, what the authors regard as voice quality "resonating" with 'resignation' is, in the authors' terms — though unknown to them — actually an instance of a secondary tone realising a feature of GRADUATION.

Engagement

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 37-8):

Turning to ENGAGEMENT, Hao and Hood (2019) note the significance of hand position as far as supporting the expansion and contraction of heteroglossia is concerned – with supine hands opening up dialogism and prone hands closing it down. In the following example the vlogger’s supine hands converge with the modalisation probably, reinforcing acknowledgement of the viewer’s voice:

 

Two moves later the hands flip over to prone position in support of the negative move shutting down the expectation that the vlogger was in control of the new colour of her hair.

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Semovergent Paralanguage Of ENGAGEMENT.

[1] This is misleading; the speaker's handshape does not "converge" with modalisation probably. To be clear, the speaker's handshape is timed with the tonic hair.  The timing of the gesture thus instantiates textual linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), highlighting hair as the focus of New information.  On this basis, the handshape instantiates ideational epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage), realising hair.

In this first instance, the authors have again tried to make the data fit their theory, instead of using the data as a resource for theorising.

[2] This is misleading; the speaker's hands are not in a prone position — lying flat, palm downwards — in this instance.  Instead, each hand has the tips of the thumb and curved forefinger touching to form a horizontal circle, with the other fingers below them and similarly curved.  This handshape is consistent with holding an object, such as a bottle of hair dye, which would be an instance of ideational epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

In this second instance, the authors have again tried to make the data fit their theory, instead of using the data as a resource for theorising.

As in the first instance above, the gestures also realise the meanings of linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage).  In terms of the textual metafunction, both hands beat down on the salient syllables not and find, highlighting both Finite and Predicator, and then on the tonic hair, marking  the Complement hair dye as the focus of New information.  In terms of the interpersonal metafunction, both hands stay level for the tonic segment (hair dye that I), in line with the level/low-rising tone choice (tone 3).  (Note that this tone group is incorrectly analysed as tone 4 by Smith, which, with declarative MOOD, would realise the KEY meaning 'reservation'.)

Lastly, the reader may also want to consider why the speaker would need to shut down the possibility of other points of view on the proposition I could not find the hair dye that I bought previously when I dyed my hair.

De-centring Postures To Soften Focus

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 36-7):

Hao and Hood (2019) draw attention to the use of what they call de-centring postures to soften focus, using the example of a shoulder shrug converging with fairly non-contractile in a biology lecture. The paralinguistic generalisation here would appear to be loss of equilibrium, for example, asymmetrical facial expression, out-of-kilter posture or a rotating prone hand (interpretable as between prone and supine). Clear examples in our data are the faces the vlogger pulls as she struggles to name her skin condition in the second tone group, the second of which is accompanied by two shakes of her head.

(83) //4 anyway, it was
(84) //3 some / granu- / loma:: / ^ [out-breath] / something
(85) //1_ I don’t know – it’s / called – it’s / some sort of / skin thing. //

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): De-Centring Postures To Soften Focus (Hao and Hood).

[1] To be clear, FOCUS is a system of GRADUATION in the system of APPRAISAL.  However, fairly non-contractile is not an appraisal (of muscles), since no assessment is made of them in terms of AFFECT, APPRECIATION or JUDGEMENT.  Since there is no appraisal, there is no graduation of appraisal, and since there is no graduation of appraisal, there is no focusing of appraisal, and since there is no focusing of appraisal, there is no softening of the focus of appraisal.

Here Hao and Hood have made the same fundamental error as Martin, confusing intensification, in general, with intensification in the APPRAISAL system.  This is hardly surprising, given that Hao is Martin's former student and Hood is Martin's current de facto.

Further, the characterisation of a shoulder shrug as 'de-centring' misrepresents the bodily movement in order to align it with the meaning 'soften focus'; in other words, the data is being made to fit the theory, instead of the reverse.

Moreover, the characterisation of a shoulder shrug as meaning 'soften focus' is at odds with its interpretation by the general community.  For example, the (epilinguistic) pictorial representation of a shoulder shrug has been decoded as follows:

The person shrugging emoji can designate ignorance, indifference, self-acceptance, passive-aggression, annoyance, giving up, or not knowing what to make of something. It could also be a visual form of the one-word response of indifference, “whatever.”

[2] To be clear, here the authors have generalised 'loss of equilibrium realises softening of focus' from a gesture (shrug) which doesn't constitute a loss of equilibrium and which doesn't realise a softening of the focus of an appraisal.

[3] To be clear, here the authors propose, without supporting argument, that a rotating hand, balanced between prone and supine in orientation, constitutes a loss of equilibrium.

[4] To be clear, naming a skin condition does not constitute an appraisal, and so there is no graduation of appraisal in this instance to be softened.

In Cléirigh's original model of epilinguistic body language, any postures and gestures that signify uncertainty — the speaker's next words were "I don't know what it's called — are realisations of MODALITY: MODALISATION: probability.  

Moreover, in this example, the speaker's face instantiates linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), with her eyebrows rising with the pitch (tone 2) on the tonic something, signifying the general meaning of tone 2: 'polarity unknown'.

Graduation: Focus

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 36):

Alongside paralanguage of this kind converging with force, Hood (2011) notes the potential for precise hand shapes and muscle tension to resonate with focus. In the following example, introduced as (67) and repeated below as (67''), the vlogger tightens her grip on the tiny virtual needle she is holding and frowns slightly in concentration as she role-plays the precision involved in the dermatologist piercing her bumps:

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Paralanguage "Resonating With" GRADUATION: FOCUS.

To be clear, FOCUS is a system of GRADUATION, which is concerned with the intensification of ATTITUDE in the interpersonal system of APPRAISAL.  Here, as the instance of language makes clear, no interpersonal assessment is being enacted, in terms of AFFECT, APPRECIATION, or JUDGEMENT, and so there is nothing to graduate in terms of FOCUS.

Moreover, in this instance, the authors have simply confused the focus of attention ('concentration') of the speaker with FOCUS as a system of APPRAISAL.

Graduation: Force

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 35-6):

The most striking example of intensification in the hair colour phase occurs when the vlogger uses whole body language to enact her reaction to how dark her hair is. She throws her head back and leans back as her arms rise up – literally overwhelmed with emotion (82).

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Paralanguage "Converging With" GRADUATION: FORCE.

[1] To be clear, it is not that the whole body expresses the same meaning in this instance, but that the authors have not analysed the different meanings being made by the various gestures and postures, including the shift of gaze.

[2] To be clear, the intensification in this instance is of the Quality dark, which is ideational in function, and quite distinct from the speaker's hatred of the Quality, which is construed by the following clause.  That is, the intensification is a feature of the assessed, not of the assessing (e.g. I really hate it).   This is demonstrated by the fact that the arm gesture beats on the tonic so, the intensifier of dark.

In terms of Cléirigh's original model, the beating of the gesture on the tonic is linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), highlighting so as the focus of contrastively New information, whereas any aspects of the body language expressing conscious states are instantiations of paralinguistic body language.  That is, contrary to the authors' claim, no aspects of this instance of body language can be identified as epilinguistic ("semovergent").

[3] The claim that this gestural configuration expresses 'being overwhelmed by the emotion of hate' — literally or figuratively — requires considerable justification, none of which is given.

[4] To be clear, [82] displays an (incomplete and) incorrect phonological analysis — the tonic  actually falls on so, not dark, the initial foot is omitted, and the pronoun I begins the following tone group (after a silent Ictus):

//1+ and it's / so dark //

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:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Mistaking Ideational Intensification For Interpersonal Intensification (Graduation).

[1] To be clear, here the authors confuse the general notion of intensification with a specific type of intensification: the graduation of attitude.  In this instance of language, there is no graduation of attitude because there is no attitude being expressed.  This is because attitude is a system of interpersonal assessment  and here no interpersonal assessment is being made.  That is, the extending post-Deictic whole does not assess the Thing stack by reference to positive or negative values of emotion, ethics or æsthetics, for example.

On the other hand, the speaker's positive evaluation of the re-stocking of her favourite hair dye is instantiated protolinguistically, with the emotion expressed through facial expressions.

[2] Here again the word 'support' demonstrates that the authors are concerned with matching body language expressions with language content, instead of body language content — a confusion which leads them to falsely conclude (p28) that paralanguage is a system of the expression plane only, which realises the content of language, alongside phonology and graphology.

[3] To be clear, this iconic gesture is epilinguistic ("semovergent"), but it realises ideational meaning, a Quality of the stack, not an interpersonal assessment.  So, in the authors' terms, it "concurs" with the "verbiage", rather than "resonating" with it.

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.

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, the relation between expression ('face and body') and content ('affect') is realisation, not commitment.  'Commitment' is Martin's misunderstanding of instantiation, as previously explained here.

…

[3] To be clear, this expression of exasperation realises ATTITUDE, not because it expresses an emotion, but because the exasperation enacts an assessment (of the speaker by a motorist).

In terms of Cléirigh's original model, contrary to the authors' interpretation, the motorist's ATTITUDE is realised in protolinguistic body language, not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).  The gesture is a manifestation of a conscious state that functions socio-semiotically.

The vlogger's mime of the motorist's body language, on the other hand, is an instance of epilinguistic body language in which she projects the motorist's protolinguistic body language that assesses her.

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.

[1] This misrepresents the metafunctions as separate modules, instead of complementary perspectives on meaning.  Choices that invoke attitude are interpersonal choices.  Moreover, a speaker can "expect a reaction" to ideational meaning in the absence of attitude.

[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).

To be clear, the speaker's smile coincides only with the word Target, on which the tonic falls, marking it as the focus of New information.  So the timing of the smile is an instance of linguistic body language (Martin's sonovergent body language), and functions textually.

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.

To be clear, a smile is a physiological process that manifests a state of consciousness: a token of a senser's sensing, to adapt Halliday & Matthiessen's (1999: 210) phrase.  On Cléirigh's model, such behaviours are the raw material from which protolanguage develops. For example, in rainbow lorikeets, semiotic expressions of anger function socio-semiotically as expressions of the regulatory microfunction ('I want you-&-me'), in Halliday's model of protolanguage.

On Cléirigh's model, the speaker's smile is thus interpreted as an instance of the personal microfunction of protolinguistic body language, realising a positive emotion.  By the same token, the speaker's eye gaze is interpreted as an instance of the interactional microfunction of protolinguistic body language, signifying engagement with the viewer.

		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)

(Note that emoticons (emojis) are thus epilinguistic (pictorial) reconstruals of protolinguistic body language.)

So, contrary to the author's claims, the smile does not realise an attitudinal assessment (AFFECT), and constitutes an instance of protolinguistic body language, not epilinguistic body language ('semovergent paralanguage').

[3] As argued above, this is not true.  Moreover, if it were true, it would be an instance of 'semovergent paralanguage' "resonating" with what is not actually said.

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.

[1] Rewording this in terms of SFL theory:

In (semovergent) paralanguage, the meanings of ATTITUDE can be realised by facial expression and bodily stance.

That is, it isn't paralanguage that deploys, and the speaker enacts her attitude.

[2] The authors, after having just declared that, in terms of ATTITUDE, 'paralanguage can only enact emotion' (i.e. AFFECT and not APPRECIATION or JUDGEMENT), here present an example that, by their own terms, "resonates" with APPRECIATION.  They use term 'nuance' here to disguise the invalid claim that body language 'surprise' resonates with 'exciting'.  Moreover, as the reader can see, the facial expression does not realise the emotion 'surprise'.  Here the authors are misrepresenting the data to fit their own model.

[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.