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.

Emblems As Language Expressions

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 42-3):

The relationship we are emphasising between emblems and alternative expression form systems is outlined in Figure 1.10, using the words zero, one, two, three, four and five as examples. These words can be alternatively expressed in English through segmental phonology (e.g. /tuw/), graphological characters (e.g. ‘2’) or hand gestures (e.g. index and middle finger vertical).

An outline of the place of emblems in our overall system is presented in Figure 1.11. Rather than treating them as a dimension of paralanguage, we treat them as part of language proper – as an alternative manifestation of its own expression form.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Notion That Emblematic Gestures Are Linguistic Alternatives To Phonology And Graphology.

To be clear, Kendon's 'emblems', which he describes as 'quotable gestures', are conventionalised signs, such as 'thumbs-up', the 'V-sign', or the 'middle-finger salute'.  As signs, they are meaning/expression pairs, not tri-stratal language.

The authors, however, here present hand-shapes representing numbers as emblems and, on that basis, argue that the gestures involved are an alternative form of linguistic expression, along with phonology and graphology. An easy way to falsify this claim is to try to use emblematic gestures alone to express the following verse from Kenneth Grahame's The Wind In The Willows:

The clever men at Oxford
Know all that there is to be knowed.
But they none of them know one half as much,
As intelligent Mr. Toad!

The Argument That 'Emblems' Are Part Of Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 42):

These gestures differ from the semovergent ones illustrated thus far in critical ways (cf. McNeill, 2012: 7–10). For one thing they commit very specific meanings and can be readily recognised without accompanying co-text (linguistic or paralinguistic). As part of this specificity they can enact moves in exchange structure on their own, for example, statements and requests, alongside greetings and leave-takings (hand waving), calls (beckoning gestures), agreement (nodding head), disagreement (shaking head), challenges (upright palm facing forward for ‘stop’) and so on. For another they are the first thing that comes to mind when someone mentions gesture. And in this regard they are often commented on as culturally specific (e.g. the difference between an Anglo supine hand beckoning gesture and its Filipino prone hand equivalent). In both respects emblems contrast with common-sense dismissals of the paralanguage as idiosyncratic (although none of us has any trouble successfully interpreting another speaker’s sonovergent and semovergent systems). From the perspective of the sign languages of the deaf, emblems most strongly resemble signs; they are expression form gestures explicitly encoding meaning. Similarly, from the perspective of character-based writing systems (such as those of Chinese), emblems most strongly resemble characters (but gestured rather than scribed). 

This indicates that from an SFL perspective emblems are better treated as part of language than as a dimension of paralanguage.

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Argument That 'Emblems' Are Part Of Language.

To be clear, here the authors outline their argument for classifying what Kendon terms 'emblems' as language rather than semovergent paralanguage (Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language).

[1] Incidentally, here the authors exemplify the use the word one as a constituent of a conjunctive Adjunct; see the preceding post on the vlogger gesturing the meaning 'one'.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, unknown to the authors, the conventionalisation of the meaning of specific gestures in a community corresponds to the move of the sign (content/expression pair) from the instance pole to the system pole of the cline of instantiation.  However, since this can occur in the development of semiotic systems in general — e.g. protolanguage, emoji, pictorial signage — it does not support the authors' argument that emblems are part of language.

[3] To be clear, gestures don't "commit" meanings, they realise them, since realisation is the relation between expression and content.  'Commitment', on the other hand, in Martin's own terms, is concerned with  instantiation, the relation between potential and instance, though, as previously explained here, the notion derives from Martin's misunderstanding of systemic delicacy.

[4] To be clear, here the authors have switched attention from tone groups to exchange structures in an attempt to fudge their argument.  In their own terms, these moves would constitute examples of interpersonal semovergent paralanguage, since the meaning of these gestures "resonates" or "converges" with the meanings of Martin's interpersonal discourse semantic system of NEGOTIATION.  Accordingly, this does not support the authors' argument that emblems are part of language.

[5] The authors' "argument" here is that because these gestures are regarded as prototypical gestures, they are therefore part of language.

[6] To be clear, on the one hand, some emblems are culturally-specific and some are not.  So culture specificity cannot be used as an argument about emblems as a type.  On the other hand, in any case, the culture-specificity of semiotic systems is not confined to language, as demonstrated, for example, by differences in the protolanguages of separated populations of the same species.

[7] To be clear, Halliday (1989: 30-1) distinguishes paralanguage from indexical features, the latter being those that are peculiar to the individual ("idiosyncratic").  So the authors' argument here is that  emblems are language because they are not indexical features.

[8] As this blog demonstrates, the authors do have trouble in interpreting both the meaning of the vlogger gestures and the type of body language involved.

[9] To be clear, the authors' argument here is that emblems are part of language because their expressions resemble the expressions of language (Sign and Chinese), and that, in the case of one of these, at least, the expressions "explicitly encode" meaning.

On the one hand, if this is true, it applies to all languages, not just Sign and Chinese.  On the other hand, the reason it is not true is that the expressions of Sign and Chinese, encode the wording that encodes meaning, whereas the expressions of emblems only encode meaning.  That is, Sign and Chinese, being languages, are tri-stratal, whereas emblems, not being language, are bi-stratal.  Once again, the authors' argument does not support their claim that emblems are part of language.

[10] As the above clarifications demonstrate, not one of the arguments offered by the authors supports their hypothesis that emblems are part of language.

Emblems

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 41-2):

We conclude with a comment on what Kendon (2004) refers to as emblems, drawing on Ekman and Friesen (1969). Included here are gestures such as thumbs-up or thumbs-down (as praise or censure, respectively), index finger touching lips (for ‘quiet please’), hand cupped over ear (for ‘I can’t hear’), middle finger vertical (for ‘get fucked’) and so on. Our vlogger uses one of these gestures to introduce the first of her explanations as to why her hair is darker than usual – raising her index finger as an emblem for the numeral ‘1’.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Emblems.

To be clear, in terms of SFL theory, the word one here functions like firstly, as a conjunctive Adjunct, realising a textually cohesive temporal conjunctive relation internal to the discourse.  On this basis, the index finger gesture, on Cléirigh's original model, is an instance of textual epilinguistic body language, an expression realising the same meaning as the word.

On Martin's (1992) model, cohesive conjunction is misunderstood as a logical discourse semantic system, now rebranded as CONNEXION.  On this basis, the authors here missed an opportunity to present an instance of logical semovergent paralanguage.  (It will later be seen that the authors regard emblems — what Kendon glosses as 'quotable gestures' — as expressions of language, rather than stratified paralanguage).

Semovergence Implies Sonovergence

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 41):

As we will illustrate in the chapters which follow, it is probably safe to claim that whenever semovergent paralanguage is deployed, it will be coordinated with tonality, tonicity and rhythm; this is equivalent to arguing that semovergence implies sonovergence. Sonovergent paralanguage on the other hand can be deployed without semovergence, through gestures in tune with or in sync with prosodic phonology (but no more).

Blogger Comments:

Apart from the initial clause, this is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Notion That Semovergence Implies Sonovergence.

[1] To be clear, the authors have provided no evidence in support of this bare assertion, as the posts on semovergent paralanguage on this blog demonstrate.  This is merely a reassertion of their earlier claim (p3):

We will in fact suggest that SFL’s tone group, analysed for rhythm and tone, provides an essential unit of analysis for work on paralanguage as far as questions of synchronicity across modalities are concerned.

[2] As previously explained, "sonovergent" paralanguage (Cléirigh's linguistic body language) is the direct opposite of "sonovergent" because the expression plane is where it differs from language.  The reason Cléirigh called it linguistic body language is because it realises the same content as prosodic phonology.

Multiple Dimensions Of Paralanguage Converging On The Same Tone Group

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 40-1):

Although presented as a simple taxonomy, all five subtypes of paralanguage can combine with one another in support of a single tone group.

Several examples of multiple dimensions of paralanguage converging on the same tone group were in fact presented earlier (e.g. the combination of motion towards the future and pointing deixis in Example (69) of Section 1.5.2.1). 

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Multiple Dimensions Of Paralanguage Converging On The Same Tone Group.

[1] To be clear, this is Cléirigh's original model misleadingly presented as if it is a claim of the authors.

[2] As previous posts have demonstrated, this is not true of epilinguistic body language ("semovergent paralanguage"), which can be instantiated with or without language.  The authors have tried to mislead the reader, in this regard, by simply presenting all the text accompanying body language with tone group boundaries (//).

[3] For the misunderstandings and misrepresentations involved in the authors' analysis of this instance, see the two previous posts:

• Gestural Motion "Supporting" Direction In Space Or Time
• Introducing And Tracking Entities Through Finger Pointing

Taxonomy Of Sonovergent And Semovergent Paralinguistic Systems

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 40-1):

The sonovergent and semovergent paralinguistic systems discussed thus far are outlined in Figure 1.9.

Blogger Comment

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). The comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019) can be read here: Taxonomy Of Sonovergent And Semovergent Paralanguage. 

In addition, in this later publication, references to Cléirigh’s original model have been deliberately removed. Cf. Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 20, 24):

The sonovergent and semovergent paralinguistic systems discussed thus far are outlined in Fig. 38 (including cross-references to Cléirigh’s original terminology).

Again, the plagiarism in this work is effected through myriad small steps.

The Semovergent Paralanguage Of PERIODICITY

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 39-40):

As noted in Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.3, however, the vlogger does end the phase with a contrasting high then lowered pitch. The higher pitch penultimate tone group begins rhythmically speaking with a handclap foot and then a foot comprising the ‘filler’ / um /.

This is followed by the low pitch tone group; the vlogger is winding down. Following this there is a suspension of both language and paralanguage as her eyes shut and her head slumps forward (88).

The preceding phase to the one we are using to explore sonovergence here ends in a similar way (lowered pitch, with eyes shut, head down). So shutting down language and paralanguage and handing over to somasis is clearly a strategy for punctuating longer waves of discourse. It is at these points that the vlogger cuts from one filmic segment to the next (as she thinks of something more to say).

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Semovergent Paralanguage Of PERIODICITY.

[1] As previously explained here, in this instance, the authors mistook a (misanalysed) sequence of tones (language) as voice quality (paralanguage).  On Cléirigh's original model, any gestures consistent with the tone choices are instances of linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage), the concern of the present discussion.

[2] Here again, as above, the authors mistake a tone choice for paralanguage, and mistake the "sonovergent" gestures that are "in tune" with the pitch movement as "semovergent".

[3] The unarguable claim here is that ending discourse ('shutting down language and paralanguage and handing over to somasis') is one way ('strategy') of ending discourse ('punctuating longer waves of discourse').

∞

More to the point, the authors are here claiming to present paralinguistic examples of "longer waves of discourse".  In Martin & Rose (2007: 187-218), these are modelled in terms of:

• macro-Theme (introductory paragraph),
• hyper-Theme (topic sentence),
• hyper-New (paragraph summary), and
• macro-New (text summary).

To be clear, the authors have not identified any of the above in the text, and have not identified any semovergent paralanguage "in sync" with them.  Instead, the authors have merely mistaken intonation as paralanguage, and interpreted the unmarked tone for declaratives, tone 1 (and accompanying gestures) as "punctuating" a longer (unnamed) wave of discourse, while ignoring all the other instances of tone 1 (and accompanying gestures) at "non-punctuating" points in the discourse.

Again, the authors have tried to fit the data to their theory, instead of using theory to account for data.

Longer Wavelengths Of Information Flow

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 39, 233):

As far as longer wavelengths of information flow are concerned,³³ our vlogger is seated, and so whole body movement from one location to another is not a factor (as it would be, e.g. for a lecturer roaming to and fro across a stage; cf. Hood, 2011; Hood and Maggora, 2016).

³³ van Leeuwen (1985, 1992) and Martinec (2002) argue that SFL’s phonological hierarchy can be pushed up several wavelengths beyond the tone group; their work suggests that higher-level rhythm would converge with higher-level periodicity in Martin’s (1992) framework.

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Claim That Units Of Speech Rhythm Realise Elements Of Writing Pedagogy.

To be clear, the claim here is that proposed higher level phonological units "converge" with Martin's discourse semantic functions of macro-Theme, hyper-Theme, hyper-New and macro-New.  There are several obvious theoretical inconsistencies here.

The over-arching inconsistency is that the authors are proposing that patterns of speech rhythm correspond to pedagogical suggestions on how to write.  This is because Martin's four discourse semantic functions are actually rebrandings of introductory paragraph, topic sentence, paragraph summary and text summary, as previously explained.

A second inconsistency is that speech rhythm can only identify potential New information, and bears no systematic relation to thematicity.

A third inconsistency is that the use of gesture to realise New information is linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

A fourth inconsistency is the matching of structural units (wavelengths beyond the tone group) with elements of structure (Themes and News).

A fifth inconsistency, in the authors' own terms, is the use of their term for a relation between the same stratum of different semiotic systems, converge, for an interstratal relation within language.

Identification

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 38-9):

As far as pointing deixis is concerned we can return to the examples contrasting past and future in Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.1. The vlogger’s hand points to the past in (58'), and alongside motioning to the future both the vlogger’s index fingers point there (14'''').

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Introducing And Tracking Entities Through Finger Pointing.

[1] To be clear, the authors' claim (ibid.) is that:

From a textual perspective we need to take into account how spoken language introduces entities and keeps track of them once there (IDENTIFICATION) …

Clearly, because 'past' and 'future' are temporal locations, they are not entities, and pointing gestures do not introduce them as entities, nor keep track of them through the discourse.  This is another instance of the authors misrepresenting the data to fit their theory.

Note also that the unit of IDENTIFICATION in Martin (1992) and Martin & Rose (2007) is participant, not entity.

[2] Once again the authors present a tone group that is … wrongly analysed for tonicity (the tonic falls on next, not time).

Textual Semovergent Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 38, 233):

From a textual perspective³² we need to take into account how spoken language introduces entities and keeps track of them once there (IDENTIFICATION) and how it composes waves of information in tone groups, clauses and beyond (PERIODICITY). Semovergent paralanguage potentially supports these resources with pointing gestures and whole body movement and position.

³² Martinec (1998) interprets textual meaning as realised through cohesion, following Halliday and Hasan (1976); as introduced earlier for this monograph we follow Martin (1992) who reinterprets cohesion as discourse semantics (Martin, 2014), organised metafunctionally in Martin and Rose ([2003] 2007) as ideational resources (IDEATION, CONNEXION), interpersonal resources (NEGOTIATION, APPRAISAL) and textual resources (IDENTIFICATION, PERIODICITY).

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Textual Semovergent Paralanguage.

[1] To be clear, despite this claim, it will be seen that the authors provide no instances of semovergent paralanguage in this paper that either introduce entities or keep track of them.

Moreover, IDENTIFICATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) grammatical cohesive systems of REFERENCE and ELLIPSIS-&-SUBSTITUTION, misunderstood, confused with ideational denotation and the interpersonal DEIXIS of nominal group structure, and relocated to discourse semantics; evidence here.

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, this confuses content (information) with expression (tone group), following Martin (1992: 384).  On the other hand, on Cléirigh's original model, any aspect of body language that highlights the focus of New information, or delineates a unit of information, functions as linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

[3] To be clear, PERIODICITY is Martin and Rose's (2003, 2007) reinterpretation of what Martin (1992: 393) models as interstratal interaction patterns as a textual systems of Martin's discourse semantic stratum.  However, Martin's model misrepresents writing pedagogy as linguistic theory, such that:

• introductory paragraph is rebranded as macro-Theme,
• topic sentence is rebranded as hyper-Theme,
• paragraph summary is rebranded as hyper-New, and
• text summary is rebranded as macro-New.

It will be seen that, unsurprisingly, the authors provide no instances of semovergent paralanguage in this paper that 'compose waves of information', let alone gestural realisations of introductory paragraphs, topic sentences, paragraph summaries or text summaries.

[4] To be clear, here Martin and his former student follow Martin (1992) in rebranding misunderstandings Halliday & Hasan's (1976) non-structural textual systems of lexicogrammar as structural discourse semantic systems across three metafunctions.

[5] To be clear, IDEATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) textual system of LEXICAL COHESION, misunderstood, confused with logical relations between experiential elements of nominal group structure, also misunderstood, and relocated to discourse semantics as an experiential system; evidence here.

[6] To be clear, CONNEXION does not feature in Martin and Rose (2007), or in Martin (1992). The term 'CONNEXION' is a rebranding of Martin's CONJUNCTION by Martin's former student, Hao. CONJUNCTION is Martin's misunderstanding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) textual lexicogrammatical system of cohesive conjunction as a logical system at the level of discourse semantics.  Moreover, it confuses non-structural textual relations with structural logical relations, and misunderstands and misapplies the expansion relations involved; evidence here.

That is to say, CONJUNCTION was the only one of Halliday and Hasan's cohesive systems that Martin neglected to rebrand as his own system, and this oversight was finally addressed by his former student.

[7] To be clear, NEGOTIATION is Martin's (1992) rebranding of Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION.

Voice Quality

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 38):

Voice quality was noted in Section 1.5.1 in relation to the sing/song pitch (high then low) movement the vlogger uses in her last four tone groups to close down her hair dye narrative. From the perspective of APPRAISAL the sound quality resonates with her feeling that she is resigned to her current hair colour, at least for now. Work on this interpersonal aural dimension of paralanguage, drawing on van Leeuwen (1999), will be further explored in Chapter 5.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Mistaking Language (Intonation) For Paralanguage (Voice Quality).

[1] Here the authors mistake prosodic features (the TONE sequence 3^13^3^1–) for a paralinguistic feature ("sing/song" voice quality).  Halliday (1985: 30-1) explains the difference as follows:

 

Moreover, if what the authors regard as "sing/song" pitch:

//3 hopefully / next ↑time I will 
//1 get my / ↓hair colour / back 
//3 um / but for / ↑now 
//3 this will / ↓do //

is compared with an accurate phonological analysis:

//3 hopefully / next time I will
//13 get my / hair colour / back
//3 um /but for / now 
//1- this will / do //

It can be seen that:

• the first ↑ corresponds to the low-rising pitch of tone 3,
• the first ↓ corresponds to the falling pitch of tone 1,
• the second ↑ corresponds to the low-rising pitch of tone 3, and
• the second ↓ corresponds to the narrow falling pitch of tone 1–

[2] To be clear, it is only the final TONE selection, tone 1–, that coincides with the APPRAISAL that the authors interpret as 'resignation' (this will do).  In SFL theory, the selection of tone 1– with declarative MOOD realises the KEY features 'mild or expected'.  Halliday (1970: 31):

Meaning of secondary tones In some cases the difference between a pair, or set, of secondary tones is mainly a matter of 'key', the degree of forcefulness or emotional intensity of the utterance. …

1. (medium), neutral; 1+ (wide), strong or unexpected; 1– (narrow), mild or expected.

On this basis, what the authors regard as voice quality "resonating" with 'resignation' is, in the authors' terms — though unknown to them — actually an instance of a secondary tone realising a feature of GRADUATION.

Engagement

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 37-8):

Turning to ENGAGEMENT, Hao and Hood (2019) note the significance of hand position as far as supporting the expansion and contraction of heteroglossia is concerned – with supine hands opening up dialogism and prone hands closing it down. In the following example the vlogger’s supine hands converge with the modalisation probably, reinforcing acknowledgement of the viewer’s voice:

 

Two moves later the hands flip over to prone position in support of the negative move shutting down the expectation that the vlogger was in control of the new colour of her hair.

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Semovergent Paralanguage Of ENGAGEMENT.

[1] This is misleading; the speaker's handshape does not "converge" with modalisation probably. To be clear, the speaker's handshape is timed with the tonic hair.  The timing of the gesture thus instantiates textual linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), highlighting hair as the focus of New information.  On this basis, the handshape instantiates ideational epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage), realising hair.

In this first instance, the authors have again tried to make the data fit their theory, instead of using the data as a resource for theorising.

[2] This is misleading; the speaker's hands are not in a prone position — lying flat, palm downwards — in this instance.  Instead, each hand has the tips of the thumb and curved forefinger touching to form a horizontal circle, with the other fingers below them and similarly curved.  This handshape is consistent with holding an object, such as a bottle of hair dye, which would be an instance of ideational epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

In this second instance, the authors have again tried to make the data fit their theory, instead of using the data as a resource for theorising.

As in the first instance above, the gestures also realise the meanings of linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage).  In terms of the textual metafunction, both hands beat down on the salient syllables not and find, highlighting both Finite and Predicator, and then on the tonic hair, marking  the Complement hair dye as the focus of New information.  In terms of the interpersonal metafunction, both hands stay level for the tonic segment (hair dye that I), in line with the level/low-rising tone choice (tone 3).  (Note that this tone group is incorrectly analysed as tone 4 by Smith, which, with declarative MOOD, would realise the KEY meaning 'reservation'.)

Lastly, the reader may also want to consider why the speaker would need to shut down the possibility of other points of view on the proposition I could not find the hair dye that I bought previously when I dyed my hair.

De-centring Postures To Soften Focus

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 36-7):

Hao and Hood (2019) draw attention to the use of what they call de-centring postures to soften focus, using the example of a shoulder shrug converging with fairly non-contractile in a biology lecture. The paralinguistic generalisation here would appear to be loss of equilibrium, for example, asymmetrical facial expression, out-of-kilter posture or a rotating prone hand (interpretable as between prone and supine). Clear examples in our data are the faces the vlogger pulls as she struggles to name her skin condition in the second tone group, the second of which is accompanied by two shakes of her head.

(83) //4 anyway, it was
(84) //3 some / granu- / loma:: / ^ [out-breath] / something
(85) //1_ I don’t know – it’s / called – it’s / some sort of / skin thing. //

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): De-Centring Postures To Soften Focus (Hao and Hood).

[1] To be clear, FOCUS is a system of GRADUATION in the system of APPRAISAL.  However, fairly non-contractile is not an appraisal (of muscles), since no assessment is made of them in terms of AFFECT, APPRECIATION or JUDGEMENT.  Since there is no appraisal, there is no graduation of appraisal, and since there is no graduation of appraisal, there is no focusing of appraisal, and since there is no focusing of appraisal, there is no softening of the focus of appraisal.

Here Hao and Hood have made the same fundamental error as Martin, confusing intensification, in general, with intensification in the APPRAISAL system.  This is hardly surprising, given that Hao is Martin's former student and Hood is Martin's current de facto.

Further, the characterisation of a shoulder shrug as 'de-centring' misrepresents the bodily movement in order to align it with the meaning 'soften focus'; in other words, the data is being made to fit the theory, instead of the reverse.

Moreover, the characterisation of a shoulder shrug as meaning 'soften focus' is at odds with its interpretation by the general community.  For example, the (epilinguistic) pictorial representation of a shoulder shrug has been decoded as follows:

The person shrugging emoji can designate ignorance, indifference, self-acceptance, passive-aggression, annoyance, giving up, or not knowing what to make of something. It could also be a visual form of the one-word response of indifference, “whatever.”

[2] To be clear, here the authors have generalised 'loss of equilibrium realises softening of focus' from a gesture (shrug) which doesn't constitute a loss of equilibrium and which doesn't realise a softening of the focus of an appraisal.

[3] To be clear, here the authors propose, without supporting argument, that a rotating hand, balanced between prone and supine in orientation, constitutes a loss of equilibrium.

[4] To be clear, naming a skin condition does not constitute an appraisal, and so there is no graduation of appraisal in this instance to be softened.

In Cléirigh's original model of epilinguistic body language, any postures and gestures that signify uncertainty — the speaker's next words were "I don't know what it's called — are realisations of MODALITY: MODALISATION: probability.  

Moreover, in this example, the speaker's face instantiates linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), with her eyebrows rising with the pitch (tone 2) on the tonic something, signifying the general meaning of tone 2: 'polarity unknown'.

Graduation: Focus

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 36):

Alongside paralanguage of this kind converging with force, Hood (2011) notes the potential for precise hand shapes and muscle tension to resonate with focus. In the following example, introduced as (67) and repeated below as (67''), the vlogger tightens her grip on the tiny virtual needle she is holding and frowns slightly in concentration as she role-plays the precision involved in the dermatologist piercing her bumps:

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Paralanguage "Resonating With" GRADUATION: FOCUS.

To be clear, FOCUS is a system of GRADUATION, which is concerned with the intensification of ATTITUDE in the interpersonal system of APPRAISAL.  Here, as the instance of language makes clear, no interpersonal assessment is being enacted, in terms of AFFECT, APPRECIATION, or JUDGEMENT, and so there is nothing to graduate in terms of FOCUS.

Moreover, in this instance, the authors have simply confused the focus of attention ('concentration') of the speaker with FOCUS as a system of APPRAISAL.

Graduation: Force

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 35-6):

The most striking example of intensification in the hair colour phase occurs when the vlogger uses whole body language to enact her reaction to how dark her hair is. She throws her head back and leans back as her arms rise up – literally overwhelmed with emotion (82).

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Paralanguage "Converging With" GRADUATION: FORCE.

[1] To be clear, it is not that the whole body expresses the same meaning in this instance, but that the authors have not analysed the different meanings being made by the various gestures and postures, including the shift of gaze.

[2] To be clear, the intensification in this instance is of the Quality dark, which is ideational in function, and quite distinct from the speaker's hatred of the Quality, which is construed by the following clause.  That is, the intensification is a feature of the assessed, not of the assessing (e.g. I really hate it).   This is demonstrated by the fact that the arm gesture beats on the tonic so, the intensifier of dark.

In terms of Cléirigh's original model, the beating of the gesture on the tonic is linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), highlighting so as the focus of contrastively New information, whereas any aspects of the body language expressing conscious states are instantiations of paralinguistic body language.  That is, contrary to the authors' claim, no aspects of this instance of body language can be identified as epilinguistic ("semovergent").

[3] The claim that this gestural configuration expresses 'being overwhelmed by the emotion of hate' — literally or figuratively — requires considerable justification, none of which is given.

[4] To be clear, [82] displays an (incomplete and) incorrect phonological analysis — the tonic  actually falls on so, not dark, the initial foot is omitted, and the pronoun I begins the following tone group (after a silent Ictus):

//1+ and it's / so dark //

Graduation

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 35):

Turning to GRADUATION, as noted by Hood (2011) the size of hand shapes and the range of hand/arm motion can be used to support graded language. In (81) the sweeping extent of the hand/arm motion resonates with the large quantity of hair dye in stock (whole stack).

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Mistaking Ideational Intensification For Interpersonal Intensification (Graduation).

[1] To be clear, here the authors confuse the general notion of intensification with a specific type of intensification: the graduation of attitude.  In this instance of language, there is no graduation of attitude because there is no attitude being expressed.  This is because attitude is a system of interpersonal assessment  and here no interpersonal assessment is being made.  That is, the extending post-Deictic whole does not assess the Thing stack by reference to positive or negative values of emotion, ethics or æsthetics, for example.

On the other hand, the speaker's positive evaluation of the re-stocking of her favourite hair dye is instantiated protolinguistically, with the emotion expressed through facial expressions.

[2] Here again the word 'support' demonstrates that the authors are concerned with matching body language expressions with language content, instead of body language content — a confusion which leads them to falsely conclude (p28) that paralanguage is a system of the expression plane only, which realises the content of language, alongside phonology and graphology.

[3] To be clear, this iconic gesture is epilinguistic ("semovergent"), but it realises ideational meaning, a Quality of the stack, not an interpersonal assessment.  So, in the authors' terms, it "concurs" with the "verbiage", rather than "resonating" with it.