The Fundamental Misunderstanding Behind The Terms 'Sonovergent' And 'Semovergent'

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 60):

See Table 2.4, based on Martin et al. (2013b), where the terms ‘sonovergent’ and ‘semovergent’ replace the terms ‘linguistic and ‘epilinguistic’ used in the original.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin et al. (2013b) is Martin, Zappavigna, Dwyer and Cléirigh, and the model of body language in that paper was created and developed by Cléirigh, alone. See, for example, Cléirigh's Original Notes (2009-10).

[2] To be clear, while the function of rebranding Cléirigh's linguistic and epilinguistic body language as the authors' sonovergent and semovergent paralanguage is to disguise the fact that the authors are using Cléirigh's model, the choice of these terms discloses serious misunderstandings of not just body language and Cléirigh's model, but of semiotic systems in general.

To explain, the minimum condition of semiosis is two levels of symbolic abstraction, variously labelled 'identifier' and 'identified' (Saussure), 'expression' and 'content' (Hjelmslev), 'form' and 'meaning' etc. The authors, however, misconstrue body language as expression only. It is this misunderstanding that leads them to model body language as 'para-' to language, since, without its own content plane, it must require another semiotic system, language, to provide its content.

It is this misconception of body language as an expression-only system 'alongside' language that motivates the notion of paralanguage 'converging' with language. When paralanguage expression converges with language expression, it is classified as 'sonovergent', and when it  converges with language content, it is classified as 'semovergent'.

This misconception of body language of an expression-only system led Martin and Zappavigna (2019: 26-8) — the original version of Chapter 1 in this volume — to the self-contradictory conclusion that paralanguage is an expression system of language itself, thereby undermining the notions of convergence and of paralanguage itself. See the clarifying critiques of this conclusion at The Argument That Paralanguage Is An Expression System Of Language and Paralanguage As Language Expression.

As a result of these multiple misunderstandings, the authors' 'sonovergent' and 'semovergent' paralanguage are not valid rebrandings of Cléirigh's 'linguistic' and 'epilinguistic' body language because each opposition of terms arises from different criteria. In Cléirigh's model, body language, like all semiotic systems, has both content and expression planes. What distinguishes the different types is not a convergence with language, but the type of semiotic system involved: protolinguistic, linguistic, or epilinguistic.

Linguistic body language is the use of the body to realise the same content as prosodic phonology by different means. As such, it is language, not paralanguage, and "sono-divergent", not 'sonovergent. Like prosodic phonology, it realises the grammatical systems of INFORMATION and KEY. As language, its content plane is stratified into semantics and lexicogrammar.

Epilinguistic body language is the use of the body to realise content made possible by the evolution and development of language, but unlike language, its content plane is not stratified into semantics and lexicogrammar.

Protolinguistic body language is the use of the body to realise content that does not require the evolution and development of language, and thus occurs in all social semiotic species. Again, unlike language, its content plane is not stratified into semantics and lexicogrammar. In this chapter, the authors will argue for excluding this type of body language from their model of paralanguage.