Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 211):
Our expectation is that each new register will lead to reconsideration of the details of the specific paralinguistic systems proposed in Chapters 4, 5 and 6. We do hope on the other hand that our general model of sonovergent and semovergent systems will stand a longer test of time and prove a productive framework for exploring the contribution of gesture, body orientation, position and movement, facial expression, gaze and voice quality to face-to-face interaction. … As functional linguists, we have been sidelining paralanguage for far too long.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the authors' distinction between sonovergent and semovergent paralanguage is their rebranding of Cléirigh's distinction between linguistic and epilinguistic body language. As explained throughout, the authors' sonovergent paralanguage is language, not paralanguage. And as demonstrated throughout, the authors include protolinguistic body language in their semovergent paralanguage, despite the fact that this is a rebranding of body language that is only made possible by the prior evolution and development of language. Either of these misunderstandings, alone, invalidates the authors' model.
[2] Here again Martin justifies his work as the righting of a wrong. Cf. Martin & Doran (2023: 44):
Structure markers make important contributions to the realisation of systemic options in many languages… . Our goal here has been to suggest a way forward for grammarians disposed towards granting these structural orphans a home.
No comments:
Post a Comment