Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 59-60):
Although the term ‘protolanguage’ in SFL theory referred in origin to a phase in linguistic ontogenesis, Martin et al. (2013b) and Zappavigna and Martin (2018) have suggested that for the adult communicative system, one of three proposed categories of paralanguage can be interpreted as ‘protolinguistic’ in nature. This is on the grounds that, like the infant meaning system, but unlike the other two categories they propose, it is organised in terms of microfunctions rather than metafunctions.
[1] This is misleading, because 'protolanguage' in SFL Theory also refers to a phase in phylogenesis. Halliday (2003: 14, 16):
When our primary semiotic evolved into a higher-order semiotic (that is, when protolanguage evolved into language) …
… in the evolution of language out of protolanguage …
[2] This is misleading, because 'protolinguistic' was Cléirigh's proposal, and for body language, not paralanguage.
[3] With regard to Cléirigh's proposal, this is very misleading indeed. The category of protolinguistic body language is not proposed on the grounds that it is microfunctionally organised. It is proposed on the basis that it is a bi-stratal social semiotic system that is evolutionarily and developmentally prior to language (and as such, also to be found in other social semiotic species). The microfunctions are the SFL way of modelling paralanguage, not criterial for the category. That is, the microfunctions are a result of the categorisation, not the reason for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment