Most Pageviews by Country

Why Facial Affect Is More Limited Than Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 121):

As noted earlier, ATTITUDE in language can be expressed through systems of AFFECT, APPRECIATION or JUDGEMENT while paralinguistic expressions of ATTITUDE are restricted to FACIAL AFFECT (see, e.g. Tian, 2011). This means that the paralinguistic meaning potential for expressing emotion is relatively limited with respect to language. 

For example, an array of finely distinguished lexical instantiations of the feature [realis: happiness; mood; positive] (Table 5.1) are possible, as, for instance, in happy/joyful/delighted/thrilled and so on, such fine distinctions are not available in FACIAL AFFECT. 

In analyses of intermodal resonance in Coraline, fine distinctions in verbal instances (e.g. happy vs joyful) may be inferred for resonant facial expressions but cannot be attributed to specific variations in the facial expression. In other words a given expression of FACIAL AFFECT might couple with a diverse array of lexical realisations of [realis: happiness; mood; positive].

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this relative limitation with respect to language is simply explained by the fact that the facial expression of emotion is a protolinguistic semiotic system, which means it lacks a grammatical stratum.

Neither Affect Nor Body Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 121, 122):

In summary, the network in Figure 5.3 models FACIAL EFFECT with six features of emotion: [spirit:up], [spirit:down], [fear], [anger], [disdain] and [surprise]. Each of these six features is illustrated and described in (2). Facial resources for expression are in bold.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, the facial expression of emotion is protolanguage, serving the personal metafunction, and so not an interpersonal system (AFFECT) of the discourse semantics of language.

[2] As previously observed, the facial expressions constructed on clay puppets are not body language, but epilinguistic representations of body language created by animators using the emotion-face coding of Ekman.

Misrepresenting 'Threat' As An Emotion

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 120-1, 239n):

An additional opposition proposed by Darwin (1872) is between facial movements interpreted as ‘fear’ and ‘anger’. For Darwin, ‘fear’ is a feeling caused by the anticipation that one could be harmed (which we interpret as a response to what might happen, i.e. an irrealis trigger) and ‘anger’ is a feeling that might result in one harming others (which we interpret as a response to something real happening, i.e. a realis trigger). In the network of FACIAL AFFECT in Figure 5.3 [fear] and [anger] are opposing features of [threat]. Each feature is realised through a different set of facial expressions shown in italics. In the intersemiosis of facial expression and the unfolding storyline in language and action, the facial feature [fear] is interpretable as negative and irrealis, that is, it is a negative emotional response to what might happen. In contrast the feature [anger] is interpretable as negative and realis, an emotional response to what is happening or has happened.

Blogger Comments;

[1] As previously explained, the title Darwin (1872), The expression of the emotions in man and animals, demonstrates that the meanings here are protolinguistic, since other animals do not express the meanings of language. So, to model protolanguage as language, as FACIAL AFFECT, is theoretically invalid. On Halliday's model, the expression of emotion serves the personal microfunction of protolanguage. 

[2] To be clear, here the authors misrepresent the result of anger (harming others) as the reason for it (trigger).

[3] To be clear, in Figure 5.3, the authors misrepresent 'threat' as an emotion, with its result (fear) and cause (anger) as its subtypes.

[4] Again, the system in Figure 5.3 confirms the fact that here the authors model paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system, and although this is consistent with the notion of a semiotic system, it is inconsistent with the preceding chapters in which paralanguage is misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. Where in previous chapters it was just paralinguistic expression that was semovergent with language, in this chapter it is both paralinguistic content and expression that is semovergent with language.

Problems With The System Of Facial Affect

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 120, 121):

The systemic functional semiotic system of FACIAL AFFECT presented in Figure 5.3 takes into account these important contributions in a number of areas, including descriptive terminology. For example, the naming of features in the model of FACIAL AFFECT avoids the use of Ekman’s terms of ‘happiness’ and ‘sadness’ as [happiness] is already a feature in linguistic ATTITUDE. Instead emotion terminology is sourced to Darwin’s (1872) opposition in facial movements of ‘high spirit’ and ‘low spirit’. Darwin’s influence is seen in Figure 5.3 in the naming of the feature [spirit] and its opposing features as [up] and [down].

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the system in Figure 5.3 confirms the fact that here the authors model paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system. As previously noted, although this is consistent with the notion of a semiotic system, it is inconsistent with the preceding chapters in which paralanguage is misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. Where in previous chapters it was just paralinguistic expression that was semovergent with language, in this chapter it is both paralinguistic content and expression that is semovergent with language.

[2] To be clear, the title of Darwin (1872), The expression of the emotions in man and animals, acknowledges that the expression of emotion does not require the evolution and development of language. As such, the facial expression of emotion is protolanguage, not language.

Where AFFECT is a system of the interpersonal metafunction in the tri-stratal semiotic of language, protolanguage is a bi-stratal system that is pre-metafunctional. On Halliday's model, the expression of emotion serves the personal microfunction. 

In short, to model the personal microfunction of protolanguage as the interpersonal metafunction of language, as FACIAL AFFECT, is theoretically invalid.

An Inconsistent Use Of 'Semovergent'

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 119-20):

The linguistic system of AFFECT does not constitute a blueprint for the development of a system of PARALINGUISTIC AFFECT, its features or oppositions; the systems in the two modalities are named differently to reflect this (as in PARALINGUISTIC ENGAGEMENT and PARALINGUISTIC GRADUATION). PARALINGUISTIC AFFECT models expressions of emotion in FACIAL AFFECT with features realised through muscle movement of the face, and in VOICE AFFECT with features realised through qualities of the voice.

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, here the authors model paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system. Although this is consistent with the notion of a semiotic system, it is inconsistent with the preceding chapters in which paralanguage is misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. Where in previous chapters it was just paralinguistic expression that was semovergent with language, in this chapter it is both paralinguistic content and expression that is semovergent with language.

Paralinguistic Expressions Of Attitude

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 117-8):

The discourse system of ATTITUDE (Figure 5.1) differentiates AFFECT as the expression of feelings or emotions from JUDGEMENT as the evaluation of people and behaviour and APPRECIATION as the assessment of phenomena (Martin and Rose, [2003] 2007; Martin, 2020). Of these three kinds of ATTITUDE only AFFECT is relevant to a discussion of interpersonal semovergence as paralinguistic expressions of ATTITUDE are restricted to those of emotion (e.g. Tian, 2011; Welch, 2005; Painter et al., 2013: 31–2).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the claim here is that, in the authors' model, paralanguage cannot enact judgement or appreciation.

Moreover, in the authors' terms, there is an unrecognised instance of a representation of judgement in the authors' data (p147):

If you point the finger at someone or point an accusing finger at someone, you blame them or accuse them of doing wrong.

Problems With A Phonological Analysis

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 117):

The example in (1) shows paralinguistic expressions sonovergent with each major tone choice (other than the level-rise tone 3 which offers minimal phonological scope for convergent body-part movement). A phonological transcription records the tone (as, e.g. //1), and the intonation contour describes and interprets it (as, e.g. falling – ‘certain’). The paralanguage which is sonovergent with each intonation contour – which visualises it – is then described. The resonance of the visual and phonological contours adds further salience to the tonic and hence the given tone choice.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, tone 3 is a level or low rise in pitch, so it can be realised facially by a maintained level or low rise in the eyebrows.

[2] To be clear, adding salience to the tonic is adding salience to what the tonic realises: the focus of New information, not to the tone choice that realises the system of KEY.

[3] To be clear, based on the system of KEY, the most likely tone for // I didn't / break it // is tone 2 ('protest'), not tone 4 ('reservation'), and this analysis is supported by the raised eyebrows on the clay puppet.

The Problem With Interpersonal Sonovergent Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 116):

Sonovergent paralanguage is only meaningful in its relation to the prosodic phonology of co-expressed speech (Halliday, 1967, 1970a; Halliday and Greaves, 2008; Smith and Greaves, 2015) (see Chapters 1 and 3). … Where interpersonal sonovergent paralanguage resonates with tone choices it is frequently expressed in up or down movements of the head, eyebrows or arms in tune with pitch movements in co-articulated speech.

Blogger Comments:

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.

The Designed Representations Of Body Language On Clay Puppets

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 116):

In stop-motion animations such as Coraline story characters are portrayed by puppets. Their movements, body language and facial expressions are designed by animators to match the pre-recorded speech of voice actors. The animations are developed frame-by-frame as animators make very small changes to the puppet’s face or body. Each change is captured as a ‘stop-motion’ or static frame before being collated and camera recorded to create movements in film (Laika Studios, 2017). In films, the characterisation of the main characters conveys the thematic message; accordingly, every facial or body movement of the main puppet characters (including the way they walk) is designed to express meaning – and so everything they do can be interpreted as semiotic rather than somatic behaviour (see Chapter 1; Mohamed and Nor, 2015; van Leeuwen, 2005). That said, the body movements of secondary characters arguably include both semiotic and somatic behaviour in order to progress the storyline. In this chapter we concentrate on the meaningful behaviour of the main characters.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, epilinguistic representations on clay puppets designed by animators are not instances of the body language of a member of socio-semiotic species.

[2] To be clear, the facial postures and movements of all the puppets designed by the animators represent both social and semiotic systems, in terms of Halliday's linear taxonomy of evolutionary complexity.