Gestural And Postural Semiosis
A Systemic-Functional Linguistic Approach To ‘Body Language’
What has hitherto been regarded as body language (and paralanguage) can be subclassified according to three types of semiotic systems: protolinguistic, linguistic and epilinguistic. (The term ‘epilinguistic’ — on the model of ‘epiphyte’ — is preferred here to ‘parasitic’, since the latter connotes a negative evaluation.) That is, body language is best modelled, not as a distinct semiotic system, but rather, as distributed across these three ‘other’ types of systems as a result of the transition from protolanguage into language.
v As protolanguage, body language is a development from infant protolanguage; as protolanguage, it is a microfunctionally organised bi-stratal system in which expression realises meaning.
v As language, body language involves a prosodic expression system acting in sync with the rhythm, or in tune with the intonation, of prosodic phonology; as language, it is a metafunctionally organised tri-stratal system in which kinology realises lexicogrammar (wording) which realises semantics (meaning).
v As epilanguage, body language is a metafunctionally organised bi-stratal system with an articulatory expression system realising semantics (meaning).
So that is to say, bodily expression can move with the speech prosodies (linguistic) or realise the semantics of speech (epilinguistic). When it does neither, it is protolinguistic.
Linguistic Body Language (Body Language)
This is body language that only occurs during speech. Its kinology involves visible body movements that are in sync with the rhythm or in tune with the (defining) pitch movement of spoken language. In doing so, the function of such movements is precisely that of the prosodic phonology: rhythm and intonation.
As linguistic, ‘prosodic’ body language is thus:
v tri-stratal: its kinology realises the lexicogrammar of (adult) language, and
v metafunctional (textual and interpersonal) in terms of Halliday’s modes of meaning.
| lexicogrammar | prosodic expression | |
phonology | kinetic | ||
| lexical salience° | rhythm | gesture (hand, head) in sync with the speech rhythm |
textual | focus of new information | tonicity | gesture (hand, head) in sync with the tonic placement |
| information distribution | tonality | gesture (hand, head) co-extensive with tone group |
interpersonal | key | tone | gesture (eyebrow*, hand) in tune with the tone choice |
* also: rolling of the eyes for tone 5.
°Halliday (1985: 60)
The function of rhythm in discourse is to highlight content words (lexical items).
Epilinguistic Body Language (Body Epilanguage)
These are body language systems which, like pictorial systems, are made possible by the transition into language, but which are not systematically related to the lexicogrammar of language. When used in the absence of spoken language, this type of body language is called mime, and it is mimetic in this sense.
The kinological systems are analogous to the articulatory systems of phonology, though they realise meaning rather than wording, and include gestures that involve drawing in the air — ‘where drawing and gesturing merge’ (Matthiessen 2007: 8).
As epilinguistic, ‘articulatory’ body language is thus
v bi-stratal: its kinology realises the semantics of (adult) language and
v metafunctional (textual, interpersonal and ideational) in terms of Halliday’s modes of meaning.
| semantics | kinetic expression |
textual | eg reference: exophoric vs endophoric; personal vs demonstrative (near speaker, addressee, both, neither) | ø pointing hands, eyes, head exophoric ø pointing to phenomena and metaphenomena* in the field of perception endophoric ø pointing to regions of (metaphenomenal) gesturing space as text |
interpersonal | eg modality and polarity• | ø eg oscillating hand (modalisation), nodding head (polarity) |
ideational | phenomena°: elemental (& configurational?) | ø eg drawing shapes, mimicking movements with hands |
* metaphenomena include the semiotic content realised by pictures, writing etc, as in books, screen projections (eg Hood’s data) etc
• But not speech function: epilinguistic body language does not distinguish between offer, statement, command and question.
° Halliday & Matthiessen (1999).
Protolinguistic Body Language (Body Protolanguage)
‘Protolinguistic’ body language systems are those ‘left behind’ in the transition to the mother tongue (ie not incorporated into language), but nevertheless expanded from the pre-linguistic systems and contextually different, since it is not used instead of language by non-language users, but can be deployed by language users with or without speech. Whereas prosodic and mimetic body language are used with speech, and their meanings are those of language, protolinguistic body language occurs with both speech or silence, and their meanings are not those of language, but protolanguage.
On Halliday’s model of infant protolanguage:
v it is a bi-stratal system, meaning and expression (no lexicogrammar).
v The axial and stratal dimensions of adult language are not distinguished: content maps onto the paradigmatic axis, expression onto the syntagmatic axis.
eg
|
| AXES | |
|
| paradigmatic | syntagmatic |
STRATA | content | threat |
|
expression |
| raised fist | |
v The modality of expression is the whole body, effected by gestural and postures.
v There is “proto-dialogue” in as much as there is turntaking, but with no exchange of rôles.
v In terms of the speech functions of adult language, there is the exchange of goods-&-services, but not of information.
In infant protolanguage, semiosis is microfunctional (rather than metafunctional):
v the regulatory (‘do as I tell you’),
v the interactional (‘me and you’),
v the instrumental (‘I want’), and
v the personal (‘here I come’).
Halliday (1992) interprets these four core microfunctions as the intersection of two forms of consciousness: action and reflection, and two domains of experience: interactant and non-interactant, as tabled below.
|
| Form Of Consciousness* | |
|
| action | reflection |
Domain Of | interactant | regulatory do as I tell you | interactional me and you |
Experience° | non-interactant | instrumental I want | personal here I come |
* aka form of projection (Halliday 1994), mood (Halliday 2004)
° aka orientation (inward vs outward) (Halliday 2004)
|
| meaning | kinetic expression |
action | regulatory | I want, refuse, threaten | ø eg raised fist, glower |
| instrumental | give me, I invite you | ø eg extended hand |
reflection | personal | emotions | ø eg smiling face |
| interactional | togetherness, bonding | ø eg mutual eye gaze |
(adapted from Matthiessen 2007: 5)
The personal potentially includes such states as nervousness, agitation, restlessness and discomfort ø jiggling legs, fidgeting, posture shifts etc.
The interactional potentially includes degrees of involvement ø facial and postural orientations (who faces whom?).
Furthermore, what has been described above as ‘vocal paralanguage’ might be plausibly subsumed under this category of ‘protolinguistic’ body language.
Conclusions
Instantial Body Language Systems
Protolinguistic Systems
Modes Of Consciousness And Expression Modalities
The data analysis shows a correlation of modes of consciousness with modalities of expression. Reflective mode [interactional and personal] was found to be realised by postures — positional states of independently movable body parts: torso, arms, head, face, eyes and vocal tract — whereas active mode [regulatory and instrumental] was found to be realised by gestures — movements of body parts: (prototypically) the hands. Within the reflective mode, interactional meanings were realised by postures of the torso, arms, head and eyes, whereas personal meanings were realised by postures of facial features and the vocal tract.
This correlation is consistent with studies of infant protolanguage (Halliday 1992; Painter 1984) and chimpanzee protolanguage (Matthiessen 2007), and lends support to the interpretation of such types of adult body language (and paralanguage) as protolinguistic.
Reflective Mode ø Posture
Interactional Microfunction (interactant/inward: 1st & 2nd person)
Expression Modality: torso, head, eyes (gaze)
engagement ø orientation: [engaged] ø [toward] vs [disengaged] ø [away]
status claim ø uprightness: [higher] ø [upward] vs [lower] ø [downward]
eg from data:
Arresting Officer: engaged ø towards Young Person, higher ø upward.
Young Person: disengaged ø away from Arresting Officer, lower ø downward.
Youth Liaison Officer: engaged ø towards Young Person, lower ø downward — so level with Young Person.
Personal Microfunction (non-interactant/outward: 3rd person)
Expression Modality: face, vocal tract (paralanguage)
[gravitas] ø [lowered] eyebrows, voice
[surprise] ø [raised] eyebrows [NB might be prosodic: rising tone]
[insistence] ø [tense] voice
[satisfaction] ø [relaxed] voice
Active Mode ø Gesture
Instrumental Microfunction (non-interactant/outward: 3rd person)
Expression Modality: arms and hands
[inviting] ø [supine] hand (towards addressee)
[rejecting] ø [raised] forearm
Epilinguistic Systems
Textual Metafunction
reference ø pointing: [exophoric: phenomenal] ø [to material] vs [endophoric: metaphenomenal] ø [to semiotic*]
* gesture space
Bibliography
Davies M & Ravelli L 1992 (eds) Advances In Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory And Practice London & New York: Pinter
Halliday MAK 1985 Spoken And Written Language Geelong: Deakin University Press
Halliday MAK 1992 How Do You Mean? in Davies & Ravelli (eds)
Halliday MAK 1994 On Language In Relation To The Evolution Of Human Consciousness (paper prepared for Nobel Symposium)
Halliday MAK 2004 On Grammar As The Driving Force From Primary To Higher-Order Consciousness in Williams & Lukin (eds)
Halliday MAK 2008 Working With Meaning: Towards An Appliable Linguistics in Webster JJ (ed)
Halliday MAK & Matthiessen CMIM 1999 Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach To Cognition London: Continuum
Halliday MAK & Matthiessen CMIM 2004 An Introduction To Functional Grammar London: Arnold
Matthiessen CMIM 2004 The Evolution Of Language: A Systemic Functional Exploration Of Phylogenetic Phases in Williams & Lukin (eds)
Matthiessen CMIM 2007 The Multimodal Page: A Systematic Functional Exploration in Royce & Bowcher (eds)
Painter C 1984 Into The Mother Tongue London: Pinter
Royce TD & Bowcher WL (eds) 2007 New Directions In The Analysis Of Multimodal Discourse London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Webster JJ (ed) 2008 Meaning in Context: Strategies for Implementing Intelligent Applications of Language Studies London: Continuum
Williams G & Lukin A (eds) 2004 The Development Of Language: Functional Perspectives On Species And Individuals London & New York: Continuum
No comments:
Post a Comment