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.

Misrepresenting Expression Stratum Systems As A Semantic Stratum Network

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 95-6):

In terms of how they are construed in paralanguage, entities vary across two main dimensions – SPECIFICITY and DEPICTION, as represented in the system network in Figure 4.1. SPECIFICITY deals with how much meaning is committed in terms of shape and size, while DEPICTION addresses how the entity is visually formed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here the authors misrepresent systems of expression stratum features as a semantic stratum network. This confusion follows directly from their previous misunderstanding of linguistic entities that are realised by paralinguistic expressions as paralinguistic entities, thereby classifying content in terms of how it is realised on the expression plane. This is analogous to classifying these discourse semantic units as phonological entities, since this is how they are realised on the expression plane of language. Cf.:

In terms of how they are "construed" in phonology, entities vary across two main dimensions – PLACE and MANNER (of articulation).

This error invalidates the authors' network — a network being a theory of the system (Halliday). 

[2] To be clear, the relation between meaning and expression/form is realisation.

Why The Argument For Ideational Convergence (Concurrence) Is Invalid

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 94-5):

Here we draw on the concept of commitment ‘which refers to the amount of meaning instantiated as a text unfolds’ (Martin, 2011b: 255) as developed in Martinec (2008) and Martin (2010). 

Language and paralanguage can vary in terms of the amount of meaning that is specified by each semiotic mode. For instance, returning again to the example from the ‘Visit to the Dermatologist’ phase, and as noted in Chapter 1, some entities were committed in the language alone (e.g. the occurrence film in I didn’t film it) and not in the paralanguage. 

There can also be differences in how delicately meaning is committed in language and paralanguage. For example, the needle and the foot bump were more delicately committed in the paralanguage than in language, as far as qualities such as size and shape are concerned. 

So rather than separating gestures into a catalogue of types based on their purported resemblance to things in the world, the approach adopted in this chapter considers how gestures function as a resource which supports ideational meaning-making – focusing on how they concur with ideational discourse semantic selections.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this is the authors' argument for modelling paralanguage as convergent with ideational discourse semantics. It can be characterised as:

Premiss 1: Some meanings are made in language, but not in paralanguage.

Premiss 2: Paralanguage and language vary in the degree to which meanings are specified.

Conclusion: Paralanguage will be modelled as realising the ideational meaning of language.

There are two basic reasons why this argument is fallacious. The first is formal: the conclusion does not logically follow from the premisses, since the variation across modes is distinct from the question of whether one realises ("supports") the other. The second is informal: in the premisses and the conclusion, the authors misunderstand paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system ('gestures'). See further below.

[1] As previously explained (here), Martin's notion of commitment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the system network, namely: that a speaker can choose the degree of delicacy to be instantiated during logogenesis. That is, it confuses systemic delicacy, in this case, with the degree to which a Thing (needle, bump) is expanded by Qualities (size, shape).

[2] As previously explained, it was not the needle that was gestured, but how a needle is held, and it was not simply the bump that was gestured, but the bubbling up of the bump (granuloma) after an injection.

[3] To be clear, both of these alternatives misunderstand paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system ('gestures'), and the second preferred alternative proposes that this expression-only system realises ('supports') the ideational meanings of language.

The first rejected alternative, the only other possibility recognised by the authors, proposes that this expression-only system be categorised in terms of the material order phenomena that the gestures visually resemble.

In Cléirigh's model, the gestures of body language simply realise the meanings of body language, whether used paralinguistically or on their own.

Misunderstanding Paralanguage As An Expression-Only Semiotic System

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 94):

In our social semiotic model, rather than classifying gestures into types, we are concerned with degrees of convergence between gestures and discourse semantic entities, occurrences, qualities – that is, degrees of ideational concurrence.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here once again, the authors remind the reader that Cléirigh's model is now their model. The plagiarism in this work is effected through myriad small steps.

[2] Again, here the authors repeat their misunderstanding of paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system that realises ("converges with") the content of language. This misunderstanding invalidates their model, since content and expression are the basic requirement of all semiotic systems, which includes paralanguage.

Confusing Content (Entity Types) With Expression (Gestures)

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 93, 94):

All of these linguistic entity types can be realised concurrently in paralanguage as gestures. Paralinguistic entities are often realised through a flat hand suggesting the boundaries of an object (e.g. parallel hands implying the sides of a box) or through a curved hand suggesting something being held or moulded (e.g. a cupped hand implying the weight or shape of an object). We introduced three entities from the ‘Visit to the Dermatologist’ phase in Chapter 1. In this phase the paralanguage concurred with two entities in the language (needle and bump) (Table 4.2).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here again the authors misunderstand paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system that realises the content of an instance of language.

[2] To be clear, here the authors have misunderstood linguistic entities that are realised by paralinguistic body language as paralinguistic entities. That is, they have classified content in terms of how it is realised on the expression plane. This is analogous to classifying these discourse semantic units as phonological entities, since this is how they are realised on the expression plane of language.

It will be seen that this basic misunderstanding of stratification, which invalidates their model, leads the authors to present a semantic system network in which all the systems and features are of the expression plane (Figure 4.1).

[3] This is misleading because it is untrue. Neither of the first two hand shapes realises the entity 'needle'. The first mimes the manner of holding a needle, and the second mimes the dermatologist's manner of injecting with a needle. Similarly, the third hand shape does not realise the entity 'bump', but the 'bubbling up' of the granuloma after the injection of the steroid.

This, again, is recycled from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from its review: Misinterpreting The Data.

Misunderstanding Realisation

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 93):

Entities are the ideational discourse semantic units construing items in a field of experience. The primary types of entity are thing entities (a person, place, or object), activity entities (an activity or sequence of activities) and semiotic entities (verbiage or ideas).

In the Chatty Vlog, the ‘National Night Out’, ‘Hair Dye’, ‘Caring for Children (A)’, ‘Dermatology’ and ‘Parking Lot’ episodes tend to realise concrete thing entities from the fields of domestic/daily life and medicine (e.g. people, neighbours, kids, feet, syringe). 

By way of contrast, the ‘Social Media’ phase at the end of the vlog, where the vlogger reflects on her own social media posting practices and goals, tends to realise fewer thing entities and more semiotic entities relating to her social media text production (e.g. vlog, text message, clips, videos, comments). 

Activity entities are not common (one example being vacation in the Intro) in the vlog. Examples from other studies include entities that realise activity sequences such as method, pipette calibration, study and experiment (in scientific discourse; Hao, 2015, 2020b; Hao and Hood, 2019).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in the discourse semantics of Martin (1992: 326), the only experiential unit proposed is the message part, which in the lexicogrammar 'is realised congruently as a lexical item'. The discourse semantic unit, entity, presented here, on the other hand, is that of Martin's former student, Hao, which, as will be seen, involves inconsistencies deriving from misunderstandings of the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999).

[2] To be clear, this seriously misunderstands the notion of realisation in SFL Theory, since it presents a episode/phase of discourse realising a discourse semantic unit, entity. These are at the same level of symbolic abstraction, whereas realisation is the relation between different levels of symbolic abstraction.

[3] Again, this seriously misunderstands the notion of realisation in SFL Theory, though in a more convoluted way. In Martin (1992) activity sequences are misunderstood as context rather than semantics (evidence here). So here the authors use 'realise' in a way that consistent with the misunderstandings in Martin (1992), since a semantic entity is a lower level of symbolic abstraction than a contextual activity sequence. 

However, this consistency with the misunderstandings in Martin (1992) is inconsistent with Martin's later work, Martin & Rose (2007: 100ff) where 'activity sequence' is relocated to the discourse semantic stratum in the experiential system of IDEATION. That is, in terms of Martin's more recent work, there is no realisation relation between entity and activity sequence because both are positioned at the same level of symbolic abstraction.

The Contradictions Of 'Different Degrees Of Concurrence'

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 93):

Each phase involves figures and entities that have different degrees of concurrence between language and paralanguage: some are realised only in language, some co-realised in language and paralanguage and some are realised only in paralanguage (see the discussion of mime in Chapter 7). We begin by exploring how entities are multimodally realised in the vlog and then move on to consider figures.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, by 'concurrence' the authors mean the realisation of the ideational meaning of language in the expression-only system of paralinguistic body language.

[2] To be clear, if ideational meaning is only realised in the expression system of language, there is no concurrence and no paralanguage.

[3] To be clear, if meanings are realised only in body language, then the meanings are not those of the text as an instance of language, so there is no concurrence, since the meanings of the text are not realised in the expression-only system of paralinguistic body language. That is, here the authors incongruously propose a realisation relation between the content potential of language and an expression instance of paralinguistic body language.

[4] To be clear, the discussion of mime in Chapter 7 is recycled from Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 22-6) and discusses the miming of protolinguistic body language. See the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Mime As Paralanguage.

Foreshadowing Misunderstandings In Chapter 4

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 91, 21):

Chapter 1 provided a brief overview of the ways in which paralanguage can converge semovergently with spoken language in terms of ideational meaning. The reader is reminded that we are not envisaging a one-to-one mapping of these discourse semantic systems to paralinguistic systems but are instead interested in degrees of concurrence between these systems (see Table 1.3).

Chapter 1 described how, in terms of articulation, ideational paralanguage is mimetic – meaning that it resembles a material thing or action (i.e. ‘draws’ a material reality). This chapter provides further details on the ways in which Figures and Elements are supported by paralanguage, and presents system networks modelling this meaning potential.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, the "convergence" and "mapping" here is the realisation relation between the content of language and the expression of body language used paralinguistically. Again, this demonstrates the authors' misunderstanding paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system.

[2] To be clear, 'concurrence', 'resonance' and 'synchronicity' are three terms for the one idea, 'convergence', and this idea is a misunderstanding of the realisation relation between the language content and paralanguage expression, deriving from authors' misunderstanding paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system. By 'degrees of concurrence', then, the authors mean the degree to which the content of language is realised in paralinguistic expression.

[3] Cf. Cléirigh's original notes (2009) on 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).

[4] To be clear, 'support' here means realisation. In this chapter, the authors plan to describe how the figures and elements in the semantics of language are realised in their expression-only system of paralanguage. This will lead them to present, as Figure 4.1,  a semantic system network, paralinguistic entity, in which all the systems and features are of the expression plane.