The Inspiration For Zappavigna & Martin’s Model Of Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 43-4):

The remainder of this book proceeds as follows: In Chapter 2 we review the SFL ontogenesis research that inspired Zappavigna and Martin’s (2018) model of paralanguage and consider its implications for the revision of terminology and some of that model’s parameters here. In Chapter 3 we introduce the SFL description of English rhythm and intonation, which paralanguage converges with in spoken interaction. We then explore paralanguage from an ideational perspective in Chapter 4, from an interpersonal perspective in Chapter 5 and from a textual perspective in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 concludes the book with a discussion of intermodality, including consideration of mime, emblems and the place of paralanguage in a functional model of language and semiosis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here the authors misrepresent Cléirigh's model (2010) as the work of Zappavigna and Martin (2018), which satisfies the definition of plagiarism. The plagiarism in this work is effected through myriad small steps.

[2] To be clear, Cléirigh's model of body language was not inspired by SFL ontogenesis research. Instead, it simply differentiated gestures and postures according to whether they were protolinguistic, linguistic or epilinguistic. Protolinguistic systems do not require the prior evolution or development of language, whereas epilinguistic systems do. This is a taxonomy based on types of semiotic systems, not on any actual research on ontogenesis.