Foreshadowing Problems With Chapter 5 Analyses

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 115):

Analyses explore the paralinguistic systems of interpersonal sonovergence in which movements of parts of the body or face rise and fall in tune with the intonation contours of the prosodic phonology and interpersonal semovergence in which paralinguistic expressions converge with interpersonal meanings in spoken discourse. … System choices are illustrated in instances from Coraline and discussion focuses on intermodal convergences in expressions of emotion and the enactment of inter-character relations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, sonovergent paralanguage is neither sonovergent nor paralanguage. It is not sonovergent because the bodily expressions diverge from the phonological expressions, and it is not paralanguage because it is language, since the expressions realise the grammatical system of KEY. Again, this is why it is termed 'linguistic' in Cléirigh's model, which the authors in this book rebrand as their own.

[2] As previously explained, the notion of convergence misunderstands paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system, and the notion of semovergence entails that these expressions realise the content of language. However, since the expression of these meanings (emotions) does not require the evolution and development of language, these systems are protolinguistic, not epilinguistic, which means that the meanings that are expressed are not metafunctional (interpersonal) but microfunctional (personal).

[3] As previously observed, the data used by the authors is not the body language of humans, but representations of body language on clay puppets, as constructed by animators, using the emotion-face coding proposed by Ekman. The data are thus epilinguistic depictions of a protolinguistic system.

The Representation Of Emotion On Clay Puppets As Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 115):

This chapter focuses on interpersonal meaning in paralanguage – on the ways in which the paralanguage of facial expression, voice quality, body gestures and positioning express feelings and enact social relations in cooperation with spoken language. The data are drawn from an award-winning stop-motion puppet animation film Coraline, directed by Henry Selick (2009) and based on a novella of the same name written by Neil Gaiman (2002).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in modelling the facial expression of emotion in terms of a metafunction, the interpersonal, the authors present this semiotic system as one that requires the evolution and development of language. Clearly, the meaningful expression of emotion is not restricted to the one species in whom language has evolved, Homo sapiens, but is common to all social semiotic species. On this basis, the facial expression of emotion is a protolinguistic semiotic system, and in Halliday's model, is understood in terms of the personal microfunction.

[2] To be clear, the data for this chapter on paralanguage are not actually paralanguage, but representations of paralanguage constructed on clay puppets by animators, using  the emotion-face coding system of Ekman. The representation of paralanguage on clay puppets does require the prior development of language in the animators, and so is an epilinguistic semiotic system, in the terminology of Cléirigh's model.

Why All The Authors' Ideational Semovergent Systems Are Invalid

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 112-3):

This chapter has described how semovergent systems construe ideational meaning and has explored entities and figures as resources for embodied ideational meaning across language and paralanguage. These systems have been formalised in system networks that can be used by an analyst as they consider how gestures interact through a relationship of concurrence or divergence with the ideational meanings made in spoken discourse. …

A robust analytical framework for investigating ideational meaning offers a key resource for understanding human experience in social life. The ideational paralinguistic systems presented in this chapter have important potential in applied linguistics where adopting a multimodal approach to studying communication involving multiple modalities is becoming increasingly important. … We look forward to seeing how the systems explored in this chapter are taken up in disciplines such as the humanities and in studies of different semiotic modes (including face-to-face communication and communication in digital environments).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, the authors' notion of semovergent systems, where gestures realise ("interact through a relationship of concurrence") the ideational meanings of language, derives from their misunderstanding of paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system.

[2] As previously observed, all eight of the system networks in this chapter confuse discourse semantics with expression plane systems and features.

[3] As the review of this chapter has demonstrated, the framework presented here is not even theoretically valid, let alone "robust".

Confusing Discourse Semantics And Expression In A System Network [7]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 111):

A system network bringing together the various choices we have covered in the previous sections is provided in Figure 4.8.

 Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the term 'paralinguistic figure' confuses discourse semantics (figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. The system network in Figure 4.8 further demonstrates this confusion by presenting a discourse semantic network (figure) with both discourse semantic features (e.g. state figure, occurrence figure) and expression plane systems (e.g. RECURRENCE, FLOW, DIRECTION).

Confusing Discourse Semantics And Expression In A System Network [6]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 109-10):

The final two dimensions to consider when analysing an occurrence figure are flow and direction – as outlined in Figure 4.7.

 Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the authors' notion of an 'occurrence figure' confuses discourse semantics (figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. The system network in Figure 4.7 further demonstrates this confusion by presenting a discourse semantic network (occurrence figure) with expression plane systems of gestural motion (FLOW, DIRECTION).

Confusing Discourse Semantics And Expression In A System Network [5]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 107-8):

Another dimension of occurrence figures has to do with whether or not they incorporate gestures that repeat – [iterated] versus [isolated], and if so, in what manner – [ordered] versus [unordered], and if [ordered], then [to-and-fro] or [stepped]. These options are outlined in Figure 4.6.

 Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the authors' notion of an 'occurrence figure' confuses discourse semantics (figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. The system network in Figure 4.6 further demonstrates this confusion by presenting a discourse semantic network (occurrence figure) with the expression plane features (iterated, ordered, to-and-fro, stepped, unordered, isolated) of an expression plane system of gestural motion (RECURRENCE).

Confusing Discourse Semantics And Expression In A System Network [4]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 104, 105):

Where an entity is present in the paralinguistic realisation of an occurrence figure this entity may change, [transformative] versus [non-transformative] in either size, [increase] versus [decrease] or [shape]. These options are outlined in Figure 4.5. If it remains a constant size or shape, it may impact another entity in the gestural space, [impacting] versus [non-impacting].

 Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the terms 'paralinguistic entity' and 'paralinguistic figure' confuse discourse semantics (entity, figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. The system network in Figure 4.5 further demonstrates this confusion by presenting a discourse semantic network (entitied occurrence figure) with both discourse semantic features (entitied, non-entitied) and expression plane features (transformative, size, increase, decrease, shape, non-transformative, impacting, non-impacting).

Moreover, realisation statements like 'insert entity' specify a constraint on structural configuration — cf. insert Agent — but no structural configuration for occurrence figures has been identified.

Confusing Discourse Semantics And Expression In A System Network [3]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 104, 105):

Paralinguistic occurrence figures incorporate motion to construe a happening or activity. Unlike paralinguistic state figures which always visually incorporate a paralinguistic entity, a paralinguistic occurrence figure can occur both with or without committing a definable entity. There are three other dimensions along which such figures vary: whether or not the motion repeats (iterated/isolated), the speed of the motion (constant/adjusted) and the direction of the motion (omni/linear) – as shown in the system network in Figure 4.4.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, the terms 'paralinguistic entity' and 'paralinguistic figure' confuse discourse semantics (entity, figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. The system network in Figure 4.4 further demonstrates this confusion by presenting a discourse semantic network (occurrence figure) with expression plane systems of gestural motion (RECURRENCE, FLOW, DIRECTION).

[2] To be clear, this use of 'committing' misunderstands the authors' own notion of commitment. The authors' notion of commitment is misunderstood as the degree of delicacy selected in the process of instantiation. Here the term is used, not for delicacy, but for the relation between a figure and one of its constituents (entity).

Confusing Discourse Semantics And Expression In A System Network [2]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 102):

State figures involve either single paralinguistic entities that are simply manifested or more than one entity that enters into an association with another one (the [presentational] vs [relational] options in Figure 4.3). These paralinguistic entities are not involved in a paralinguistic occurrence. For relational state figures, the association may be represented via variations in either the relative size or relative position of the entities, or both, within the gestural space.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the terms 'paralinguistic entity' and 'paralinguistic (occurrence) figure' confuse discourse semantics (entity, figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. The system network in Figure 4.3 further demonstrates this confusion by presenting a discourse semantic network (state figure) with an expression plane system of features (size, position).

Confusing Discourse Semantics And Expression In A System Network [1]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 101-2):

The system network in Figure 4.2 outlines the paralinguistic figures which can concur with these kinds of meanings. It distinguishes between paralinguistic occurrence figures, in which a paralinguistic entity is involved in an activity, and paralinguistic state figures, where a paralinguistic entity is manifested. Each type of paralinguistic figure can be positioned in space, relative to the neutral position adopted by a speaker where most of their gestures occur (in front of the speaker’s solar plexus with elbows slightly bent). Paralinguistic state figures necessarily involve an entity; paralinguistic occurrence figures necessarily involve motion (as specified by the realisation statements following the downward slanting arrows in the network).

 Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the terms 'paralinguistic entity' 'paralinguistic figure' confuse discourse semantics (entity, figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. The system network in Figure 4.2 further demonstrates this confusion by presenting a discourse semantic network (figure) with expression plane systems and features (positioned, neutral). This confusion is compounded by including one discourse semantic feature (state figure) realised by the insertion of a constituent discourse semantic feature (entity), and the other discourse semantic feature (occurrence figure) realised by an expression plane feature (motion).

Confusing Semantic Figures With The Gestures That Realise Them

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 100):

In order to explore paralinguistic entities in more detail it is necessary to consider how they enter into paralinguistic figures in discourse. This will enable us to account for how paralinguistic entities are variously manifested, or presented as relating to other paralinguistic entities, and/or involved in actions or happenings in the discourse.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the term 'paralinguistic entity' confuses discourse semantics (entity) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. Here the authors further introduce the term 'paralinguistic figure' which again confuses discourse semantics (figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system

Confusing Content With Expression, Semiosis With Somasis, And Paralanguage With Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 97):

DEPICTION considers whether the paralinguistic entity has a defined contour that is visually ‘drawn’ in space (by, e.g. drawing the outline of an entity with a pointed finger in the air) or ‘sculpted’ (by, e.g. cupping a hand as in the example in (3)). The features sculpted and drawn correspond to two of Müller’s (1998) four modes of expression used in representational gestures: drawing (tracing the silhouette of an object in the air with a finger or hand) and moulding (sculpting or shaping the form of an object with the hands). 

Müller’s (1998) two other modes, imitating/acting (‘acting out’ an action) and representing/portraying (where the hands represent an object, e.g. a ‘V’ shape made with middle fingers to represent scissors) are dealt with in Chapter 1 in terms of somasis and emblems, respectively.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, the term 'paralinguistic entity' confuses discourse semantics (entity) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. To be clear, gestures are expressions that realise semantic entities; they are not the entities — just as phonemes that realise semantic entities are not the entities.

[2] To be clear, the system of DEPICTION confuses content (entity) with its expression (drawn, sculpted).

[3] To be clear, here the authors misunderstand semiosis as nonsemiosis (somasis). A gesture that imitates (mimes) an action represents that action, and as such, is semiotic, since it means something other than the gesture itself.

[4] As seen in Chapter 1, the authors treat emblems as part of language, rather than paralanguage, so here they are claiming that a hand shape that means 'scissors' is language. To be clear, even in their own model, this hand shape semovergently realises the entity 'scissors'. Here again the authors have become confused by taking the view 'from below' (expression) rather than the view 'from above' (content). That is, because the V-shape meaning 'scissors' resembles the V-shape meaning 'two', they have classified it in the same way: as an emblem.

Confusing Semantic Entities With The Gestures That Realise Them

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 96-7):

Paralinguistic entities may also vary in terms of SIZE relative to the amount of gestural space taken up by the prosodic unfolding of gestures in a stretch of discourse. In other words they may be, for instance, bigger or smaller than other entities that have occurred up to a given point in the speaker’s discourse. For example, the ‘heaping bowl of Chex Mix’ gesture in (3) is large relative to the ‘applesauce squeeze’ gesture in (1) that it precedes.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, terms such as 'paralinguistic entity' confuse discourse semantics (entity) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system (size, gestural space, gestures, bigger, smaller). To be clear, the gestures are the expressions that realise the semantic entities; they are not the entities — just as the phonemes that realise semantic entities are not the entities.

Confusing Semantic Content With Its Paralinguistic Expression

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 96):

Alternatively, the paralinguistic entity may be shaped as either two- or three-dimensional, with rounded or straightened hands and fingers. For example, the vlogger gestures defined entities when referring to the bump formation of the granuloma on her foot (2).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, terms such as 'paralinguistic entity' confuse discourse semantics (entity) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system (shape, gesture).

[2] To be clear, the terms 'shaped', 'gestures' and 'referring to' function here to express the realisation relation between paralinguistic expression and linguistic content:

• a linguistic entity may be realised as either two- or three-dimensional, with rounded or straightened hands and fingers;
• the vlogger's gestures realise defined entities;
• the vlogger's gestures realise the bump formation (but see [3] below).

[3] Again, this hand shape realises the 'bubbling up' of the granuloma after the injection of the steroid.

Confusing Semantic Entities With Gestural Expressions

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 96):

The SHAPE of a paralinguistic entity may be default, which means that it is rendered simply as a thing held in one or two hands in front of the body – with hand and fingers in a relaxed naturally cupped configuration. At the end of the ‘Hair Dye’ phase, for example, the vlogger is interrupted by her hungry children, and when filming resumes she explains that she has already given them a heaping bowl of ‘Chex Mix’ with applesauce squeeze – and she uses a default entity gesture for the applesauce.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, terms such as 'paralinguistic entity' and 'entity gesture' confuse discourse semantics (entity) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system (shape, gesture).

[2] Strictly speaking, the hand shape does not realise the meaning 'applesauce'. Instead, it realises (mimes) the manner of holding a pouch of applesauce Squeez.