Problems With The Semovergence Of Discourse Semantics And Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 207, 208):

And, as outlined in Table 7.2, semovergence was explored in terms of how linguistic and paralinguistic systems concur with one another (ideational meaning), resonate with one another (interpersonal meaning) and sync with one another (textual meaning).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, 'semovergence' derives from the authors' original misunderstanding of paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system that "converges with" (realises) the content of language. This view was assumed in Chapter 1, which was previously published as Martin & Zappavigna (2019), and was partially maintained in Chapter 4, where ideational networks confused content with expression, but abandoned by Chapters 5 and 6, where interpersonal and textual networks distinguished content from expression.

[2] To be clear, the authors' model of semovergent paralanguage substitutes the discourse semantics of Martin for the semantics of Halliday in Cléirigh's model of epilinguistic body language, but maintains Cléirigh's terms 'articulatory' and 'mimetic'. Cf.

Of the authors' paralinguistic discourse semantic systems,

• IDEATION is a rebranding of the semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), rather than the discourse semantics of Martin (1992);
• APPRAISAL is a linguistic system misapplied to protolanguage;
• IDENTIFICATION is a system of DEIXIS that classifies referents; and
• PERIODICITY is a system without a network that merely correlates the location of a speaker with what he says, without regard to how each identifies the other (realisation).

Some Of The Problems With The Paralinguistic System Networks

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 199-200):

Our final step, for this book, was to map the meaning potential of each of these five paralinguistic systems. Ideational resources were presented in Chapter 4, focusing on the construal of paralinguistic entities and paralinguistic figures (both static and dynamic). Interpersonal resources were presented in Chapter 5, focusing on the enactment of FACIAL AFFECT, VOICE QUALITY and a range of attendant social relations. Textual resources were presented in Chapter 6, focusing on PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS and PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY. The affordances of each resource were formalised in system networks, outlining the range of meanings involved and their relation to one another (i.e. their valeur).

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated in the review of Chapter 4, the authors misunderstood paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system, and all eight of the system networks confused discourse semantics with expression plane systems and features.

[2] As demonstrated in the review of Chapter 5, the authors mistook depictions on animated clay puppets for human paralanguage, modelled the bodily expression of emotion in terms of a linguistic system, AFFECT, despite the fact that other species express their emotions bodily demonstrates that these systems are protolinguistic, and so pre-metafunctional, not interpersonal.

[3] As demonstrated in the review of Chapter 6, the authors' system of DEIXIS models potential referents, not deixis, and the authors' model of PERIODICITY merely correlates a lecturer's location with what he is saying at the time, without demonstrating any realisation relation between his language and his location.

[4] This is misleading, because it is not true. No networks were provided for the system of PERIODICITY, and all eight of the ideational networks confused meaning with expression features.

On The Truth Of The Authors' Claim That They Didn't Relate Paralanguage To Grammatical Structure

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 198-9):

With the exception of mime (discussed later in the chapter) and some pointing deixis (discussed in Chapter 6), paralanguage converges with the intonation and rhythm of spoken language in our data. This argues for a linguistically informed model of prosodic phonology as a prerequisite for the analysis of paralanguage. It also provides one useful criterion for distinguishing somasis from semiosis (since somatic behaviour is not coordinated with prosodic phonology). 

Note that in relating paralanguage to discourse semantics rather than lexicogrammar, we are suggesting that the grammatical structure of a spoken language (specifically, the nature of its syntagms) is not relevant to its paralanguage. In this respect paralanguage resembles the ‘language-neutral’ sign language of the North American Plains Indians, but not the sign languages of Australia’s indigenous communities (Kendon, 2004: 299–303), at least for their more proficient signers.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously, paralanguage that "converges" with intonation and rhythm is not paralanguage, but language that realises the grammatical systems of KEY and INFORMATION by bodily means other than the vocal tract.

[2] To be clear, semiosis makes meaning, "somasis" does not.

[3] This is misleading, because the authors have related "sonovergent" paralanguage, explicitly or implicitly, to the grammatical systems of KEY, INFORMATION and THEME. On the other hand, the body language that the authors call "semovergent" is epilinguistic, and so has no grammar. 

To be clear, the reason why the authors related paralanguage to discourse semantics is that discourse semantics is Martin's model (of cohesion as semantics), though the ideational 'discourse' semantics used was, in truth, the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), rebranded by Martin's former student, Hao.

[4] Here the authors misrepresent the Sign language of the North American Plains Indians as not having a content plane that is stratified into semantics and grammar, the distinguishing feature of language.

Some Problems With Paralinguistic Hyper-New

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 193-4):

The hyper-New in (26) is preceded by two silent beats and begins with the internal causal connector so. The news of preceding tone groups (i.e. that most of the glucose, vitamins and amino acids and lots of water are back in the bloodstream) is distilled by declaring that by now we have a dilute material with not a lot of good stuff in it.

Prior to the commencement of the hyper-New the lecturer has completed a full circuit of the lecturing space, arriving at the left edge of the central desk (as depicted in Figure 6.8). 

He sustains this central position, moving behind the desk and around its right edge as he delivers the hyper-New. Note that this is the same central position from which he launched the macro-Theme. 

In effect what the body movement does here is more than culminate what has been presented. It affirms the authority of the lecturer’s declaration by positioning him at the ‘control centre’ of the meanings in play (e.g. Lim et al., 2012).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'hyper-New' is Martin's rebranding of the 'Paragraph Summary' of writing pedagogy as linguistic theory. As linguistic theory, hyper-New, like hyper-Theme and macro-Theme, is a function without a structure: there is no 'hyper-Given'.

[2] To be clear, here the authors are merely describing how the lecturer moves while delivering this part of his lecture. Any final position of the lecturer is simply his location when he ceases talking. Merely occupying a space does not highlight what is being said. And what is last said need not be a "hyper-New". That is, no realisation relation has been established between "hyper-New" and body location: a body location does not specify a "hyper-New" and a "hyper-New" does not specify a body location.

[3] Note, then, that this location of the lecturer makes no distinction between hyper-New from macro-Theme.

[4] In effect, by this reasoning, the lecturer undermines his authority when he is not at his desk, as when he expresses his "hyper-Theme" and "macro-Theme".

Some Problems With Paralinguistic Macro-Theme

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 191, 192):

In example (23) we move up one level in the hierarchy of periodicity from the hyper-Theme to the macro-Theme that immediately precedes it.

Sonovergently, the lecturer takes three steps in sync with three silent beats prior to the commencement of the macro-Theme in (24). This takes him from a space on the left to reach the central desk. Synchronous with the commencement of the macro-Theme, the last one is the distal convoluted tubule, he takes off from this central position, moving to the right. On completion of the macro-Theme, he rotates his body 180° to face left and continues stepping backwards in sync with the two silent feet that precede the hyper-Theme. 

This sequence of movement and body orientation is depicted in Figure 6.7. The lecturer ends up on his ‘launch pad’, the position from which he delivers his hyper-Theme before taking off in sync with a new phase of discourse.

The body movement and thematic development are well coordinated. Footfalls in Figure 6.6 synchronise with clause-level Themes and anticipatory positioning scaffolds higher levels of Theme – the lecturer’s positioning to the right of the lecturing space syncs with the hyper-Theme and centre-stage (desk) positioning syncs with the macro-Theme.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'macro-Theme' is Martin's rebranding of the 'Introductory Paragraph' of writing pedagogy as linguistic theory. As linguistic theory, macro-Theme, like hyper-Theme, is a function without a structure: there is no 'macro-Rheme'; that is, there is a point of departure for the message, but there is no body to the message.

As previously explained, 'hyper-Theme', a term coined by Daneš  for a Theme that is later repeated, is Martin's rebranding of the 'Topic Sentence' of writing pedagogy as linguistic theory. As linguistic theory, hyper-Theme is a function without a structure: there is no 'hyper-Rheme'; that is, there is a point of departure for the message, but there is no body to the message.

[2] To be clear, given the contrastive newness of last, and the fact that tone 3 alone misrepresents this statement as tentative, a more likely analysis of this tone group is

//3 ‸the / last one is the //1 distal / convoluted / tubule //

[3] To be clear, here the authors are merely describing how the lecturer moves while delivering this part of his lecture. Merely occupying a space before moving off does not highlight what is being said. And what is first said need not be a "macro-Theme". That is, no realisation relation has been established between "macro-Theme" and body location: a body location does not specify a "macro-Theme" and a "macro-Theme" does not specify a body location.

[4] As previously demonstrated, the relevant footfalls in Figure 6.6 coincide with the Focus of marked New information.

Some Problems With Paralinguistic Hyper-Theme

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 190, 191):

The Themes (underlined in (20)) in the sequence of figures explored earlier compose a method of development which is predicted by its hyper-Theme. In this instance, the good stuff generalises the ideational meanings given thematic prominence in the waves which follow – that is, glucose, vitamins, amino acids and water.

… How does paralanguage support this foregrounding? At the beginning of this phase the lecturer is positioned to the far right of the lecture theatre. This in effect sets up an empty physical space to the left – a space about to be filled with meaning. His body rocks back on time and forward on filtrate in Figure 6.6, presaging his take-off from this position into the space to the left. 

In terms of body movement, his position for the hyper-Theme thus functions quite literally as ‘point of departure’ for his message – as paralinguistic movement through space is coordinated with language unfolding through time.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'hyper-Theme', a term coined by Daneš  for a Theme that is later repeated, is Martin's rebranding of the 'Topic Sentence' of writing pedagogy as linguistic theory. As linguistic theory, hyper-Theme is a function without a structure: there is no 'hyper-Rheme'; that is, there is a point of departure for the message, but there is no body to the message.

[2] To be clear, the good stuff links to glucose, vitamins, amino acids and water textually through cataphoric reference and lexical cohesion. The latter constitute the identity signalled by the demonstrative the, and good stuff is related to glucose, vitamins, amino acids and water by hyponymy. It is this that does the "predicting". 

[3] To be clear, any initial position of the lecturer is a point of departure for a walk around his lecture space. It is simply his location when he begins talking. Merely occupying a space before moving off does not highlight what is being said. And what is first said need not be a "hyper-Theme". That is, no realisation relation has been established between "hyper-Theme" and body location: a body location does not specify a "hyper-Theme" and a "hyper-Theme" does not specify a body location.

[4] As previously demonstrated, the co-ordination of movement with language, in this instance, is the co-occurrence of some of the lecturer's steps with the Focus of marked New information.

Taking Steps To Realise Marked New

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 187, 189-90):

To what extent does the regularity in this sequence synchronise with PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY? The lecturer’s movement is schematised in Figure 6.5 (adopting the perspective of the students). 

The vertical lines to left and right denote the peripheries of the space, and the black rectangle denotes a centrally located desk towards the back of the space. The arrows show direction of movement; and the orientation of the foot indicates whether the lecturer is stepping forward or backwards in a given direction (it is always forward in (19'')). The figures and movement in Figure 6.5 are correlated as follows:

The movement in Figure 6.5 involves a regular three-step rhythm synchronous with each figure. The first step always falls on the intermodally prominent entity that construes the nutrient (i.e. glucose, vitamins, amino acids or water).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in comparing textual paralanguages, it is the textual metafunction that is relevant, not the ideational. So, the relevant textual structure for description that is building on the rhythm and tonicity of gestures, is the Given-New structure of information unit realised by tone groups. 

[2] To be clear, the first step of each movement coincides with the tonic that realises the Focus of marked New information.

So here the authors are positing a systematic relation between stepping and language. For Halliday and Cléirigh, that categorises the function of this movement as linguistic, or "sonovergent" in the authors' terms.

Interpersonal Semovergence Co-instantiated With Textual Sonovergence

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 183, 184):

Interpersonal meaning is additionally co-instantiated in the orientation of the hand. In images 1 and 5 of (17'') the supine (open) orientation of the hand beats invites negotiation of the relevant propositions. More technically it enacts heteroglossic expansion as opening space for negotiation (see Chapter 5; Martin and White, 2005; Hao and Hood, 2019). The alternative, a prone hand with a downward orientation of the palm, would have enacted heteroglossic contraction, closing down space for negotiation. These variations are illustrative of the way textual meaning in both language and paralanguage coordinates ideational and interpersonal prominence in unfolding discourse.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the orientation of the hand to realise heteroglossic ENGAGEMENT is semovergent paralanguage, in the authors' terms, whereas the beating of the hand is sonovergent paralanguage, so here the "co-instantiation" is of different types of paralanguage, each of which is differently convergent with language. On Cléirigh's original model, the function of the hand orientation is epilinguistic (made possible by language), whereas the function of the hand beating is linguistic (language).

[2] To be clear, because the beating of the hands is linguistic (systematically related to the grammar), not paralinguistic (not systematically related to the grammar), these examples illustrate the use of language to give textual prominence to the meanings of language.

Problems With The Authors' Analysis Of Hand Shape

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 183-4):

In (17'') we present a sequence of images and descriptions of the lecturer’s paralanguage. …

In terms of size, the beat synchronous with the first tonic on (Foucault) and the last (form of power) extends the furthest, with the stroke of the latter extending maximally downwards from shoulder height. The final beat is also extended in duration as it is held beyond the completion of the tone group.

Variation in the shape of the beating hand is noted in image 4 and magnified in (17''') to reveal the co-instantiation of a depicted paralinguistic entity. In this instance the gestural beat synchronises with self; the pronoun refers anaphorically to the semiotic entity form of knowledge. The paralinguistic beat thus assigns textual prominence to an ideational meaning.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this display does not present the text as spoken:

[2] To be clear, this distinction in the amplitude of the beat serves the same function as the distinction between tonic salient syllables and non-tonic salient syllables.

[3] To be clear, the location of the holding of the gesture suggests the function of the holding is demarcative.

[4] Clearly, the hand shape is not recognisable as meaning '(it)self' or 'form of knowledge', so it cannot be said to be realising this ideational meaning. 

[5] To be clear, it is the beat of linguistic gesture, not the hand shape, that gives rhythmic salience, highlighting what could have been chosen as realising the focus of New information, but was not. However, the fact that an emphatic pronoun was not given tonic prominence in this analysis, gives reason to doubt the accuracy of the analysis.

Crediting Martin With The Ideas Of Others

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 179):

In this section we introduce two additional paralinguistic systems – PARALINGUISTIC RHYTHM and PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY. PARALINGUISTIC RHYTHM deals with the sonovergent synchronicity of paralanguage with waves of sound in the prosodic phonology of speech. PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY deals with the semovergent coordination of paralanguage with waves of information in unfolding discourse. The metaphor of ‘waves’ references the peaks and troughs of textual prominence as texts unfold (Martin, 1992; Martin and Rose, [2003] 2007: 189).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the rhythm of body language serves the same function as the rhythm of speech, just through different body parts. Because of this, it is language, not paralanguage, which why it is termed 'linguistic' body language in Cléirigh's model. Consequently, because it is not paralanguage, it is also not 'sonovergent'.

[2] This is misleading because it misrepresents the source of these ideas as Martin ± Rose. In truth, Halliday (1985: 169) draws on Pike's (1959) triad of 'language as particle, wave and field’:

The textual meaning of the clause is expressed by what is put first (the Theme); by what is phonologically prominent (and tends to be put last – the New, signalled by information focus); and by conjunctions and relatives which if present must occur in initial position. Thus it forms a wave-like pattern of periodicity that is set up by peaks of prominence and boundary markers.

Misleading Claims About The Model Of Paralinguistic Deixis

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 178-9):

The discussion of textual semovergence to this point explores the cooperation of language and paralanguage as they keep track of people, things and places in the flow of discourse. PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS is realised through an embodied vector which directs a viewer’s gaze to either [actual] or [virtual] phenomena. … As vectors, the expressions of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS direct students’ gaze, and thus their attention, to particular [actual] and [virtual] phenomena.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. As the review of this chapter has so far demonstrated, the authors have not illustrated that body language "keeps track" of 'people, things and places in the flow of discourse'. This is merely Martin's characterisation of his system of IDENTIFICATION. Interestingly, the body language data included instances of endophoric reference, which functions cohesively within body language, but the authors don't recognise the distinction between exophoric and endophoric reference in their system of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS.

Moreover, as has also been demonstrated, the authors' system of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS is not a system of DEIXIS, because it does not make distinctions by reference to the here-&-now of the gesturer.

[2] To be clear, such a gesture would not signal that an identity is recoverable, and so would not serve a reference (identification) function. However, it was demonstrated that the DEIXIS feature 'virtual' only arises from the authors' misunderstandings. For example, of the' first two instances of virtual DEIXIS, the gesture in the first was not deictic in function, and the gesture in the second was not "unresolved".

Problems With The Authors' Analysis Of The Interaction Of Paralinguistic Deixis And Graduation

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 177-8):

The potential for a deictic gesture to be expressed simultaneously with one or more gestural realisations from other paralinguistic systems was noted in the introduction to this chapter. This is further exemplified in (16) where we zero in once again on the example discussed as (8) and (15) earlier.

In (16) the focus of attention is the deictic gesture realising [virtual:location]. In this instance the realisation of [home] converges with the verbal expression of time – today. The pinching of the thumb and index finger in image 1 selects [narrow] from the SCOPE system – but simultaneously expresses interpersonal semovergence in selecting [sharpen] in PARALINGUISTIC FOCUS (see Figure 5.14 on PARALINGUISTIC GRADUATION; Hao and Hood, 2019). Interpersonally the expression flags maximum exactitude or precision, in this instance flagging definitiveness in relation to the claim you told me today.

Upscaled PARALINGUISTIC FORCE is also enacted through the marked muscle tension involved in the pinching point in image 1 in (16) and a forceful long downward trajectory of forearm and hand indicated by the arrow in image 2 in (16). Here the systems of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS and PARALINGUISTIC GRADUATION interact to invoke the significance of the claim.

Blogger Comments:

[1] See the previous post. The gesture makes reference to a spatial location symbolising a temporal location, and 'narrow' is a feature of the expression (hand shape) not the content ("deixis").

[2] To be clear, 'sharp' describes the hand shape (expression), not its function (content). The claim that the finger pointing graduates an appraisal in terms of exactitude, precision or definitiveness is a bare assertion unsupported by evidence (the ipse dixit fallacy). Moreover, if the meaning to be recovered is 'today', then there is no appraisal made by the gesture, and so no graduation of an appraisal.

If, on the other hand, the gesture is interpreted as making reference to the addressee in the speaker's quoted text, then it could be interpreted as an accusatory JUDGEMENT. But this is not the authors' interpretation.

[3] To be clear, as the authors have previously acknowledged, the forceful downward beat coincides with the tonic prominence on today, which highlights it as the Focus of New information. That is, the beat of the gesture functions linguistically ("sonovergently") and textually ('significance'), not epilinguistically ("semovergently") and interpersonally (graduated appraisal).

Problems With The Authors' Scope And Demarcation Analysis

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 176-7):

In example (15) the PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS identifies time as [virtual:location] and selects for both SCOPE and DEMARCATION. 

In image 1 in (15), the ‘pinch’ point of left thumb and index finger selects for SCOPE as [narrow], as does the left index finger point in image 2. Both these vectors contrast with the right-hand vector in image 2 where an open palm with spread fingers and thumb configures SCOPE as relatively [broad]. The narrow pinch point in image 1 syncs sonovergently with today and semovergently with the meaning of the narrowly defined time reference. The relatively broad righthand point in image 2 syncs sonovergently with future and semovergently with the relatively open time reference. 

The PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS in (15) also selects for DEMARCATION as [delineation]. In the second image, the left index finger extends outwards from the body, sustaining its semovergence with today. The left index finger delineates a boundary line, a [virtual:location] from which time stretches into the future, the [virtual:location] identified to the right. Our data suggest that the selection of [virtual:semiotic], whether [prospective] or [retrospective], does not select for either relative SCOPE or DEMARCATION.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, this is an example of using body language to make endophoric reference, with the left-right dimension of interpersonal space ideationally construing the past-future dimension of interpersonal time, and the pointing gesture signalling that the meanings 'present' and 'future' are recoverable from those construals by body language. Again, the vector is "resolved" and so the "deixis" is not virtual.

[2] To be be clear, selecting features from systems is the process of instantiation, and it is not a (more inclusive) system that does the selecting.

[3] To be clear, gestures don't instantiate ('select') content plane features, they realise them. That is, the authors here confuse interstratal realisation with system instantiation.

[4] To be clear, it is the expression (hand shape) that is broad or narrow, not the content. As previously explained, on the authors' model, this hand shape realises the ENGAGEMENT feature 'expansion'.

[5] To be clear, the timing of the gesture is linguistic and textual, because, like the tonic, it realises the focus of New information, in this case: today and future.

[6] To be clear, the gesture points to a spatial location that symbolises a temporal location. Any location can be construed as a boundary between other locations, but there is no evidence here that the gesture construes the location as a boundary. This is a case of making the data fit the theory instead of using the theory to account for the data.

Problems With The Deixis Feature 'Tracing'

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 176):

The feature [tracing] is realised through a dynamic vector which identifies a part or quality (e.g. shape) of an entity through movement. In (14), a biochemistry lecturer is describing the structure of a water molecule. He traces with his index finger a 90° angle on a projected image of the atoms which compose a water molecule. The tracing motion is shown in arrows in the three sequential images as his index finger moves from right to left and then down. This movement is retraced multiple times in sync with the duration of underlined wordings. The retracing is interrupted in sync with the verbal reset (I’m sorry).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the feature 'tracing' is not deictic, because it does not make distinctions by reference to the here-&-now of the speaker/gesturer. Moreover, it is not a feature of the content plane, since like its realisation statement 'insert motion', it characterises the expression that realises content.

[2] To be clear, this gesturing makes a sequence of references that are exophoric to paralanguage. The efficacy of this type of body language diminishes rapidly with distance between the gesture and the referent.

Misconstruing Endophoric Reference As Ideation

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 175-6):

It is important to note here the similarity between the expressions of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS in (12) and some depictions of ideational entities realising PARALINGUISTIC IDEATION (see Chapter 4; Hood and Hao, 2021). The difference is illustrated in the two images in (13).

In image 1 the teacher delineates an [actual] entity – a written text. The expression syncs with the verbal specific determiner this in We need some sentences that link this. 

In image 2 the teacher sculpts a paralinguistic entity with her left hand in the gestural space. This expression syncs with the figure How does that sentence link back to the first one?. The semiotic entity realised in sentence in image 2 is depicted (Chapter 4) rather than pointed to.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the more likely tone for the WH- interrogative clause is tone 1. Tone 2 here would realise 'tentative' KEY, and there is nothing to suggest that this question from the teacher to her class is tentative.

[2] To be clear, in the first image, the referent of the gesture exophoric to paralanguage is the same referent as that of the exophoric demonstrative this in the spoken language.

[3] To be clear, here the authors misinterpret a gesture that realises a reference endophoric to paralanguage as a gesture that realises ideational meaning: an element ('entity') of a figure. Clearly, the gesture does not construe the meaning 'sentence'. Rather, here the teacher repeats the same gesture she previously used to point to a specific sentence in the written text. In doing so, her gesture makes anaphoric reference to her previous gesture to identify that sentence.

Interestingly, the speaker uses the word that to make exophoric reference to a referent outside language, while her gesture makes endophoric reference to a referent inside paralanguage, though the referent is the same in each case.

Why A Delineating Demarcation Gesture Is Neither Deictic Nor Delineating [2]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 175, 172):

Elsewhere in the data we find a [delineating] vector configuring boundaries with a bent finger and thumb – as in example (12). In both images the [delineating] DEIXIS identifies segments of a projected written text. (See also example (8).)

Blogger Comments:

[1] As before, this gesture does not serve a deictic function because it does not realise a distinction in relation to the here-&-now of the speaker/gesturer. And, in terms of IDENTIFICATION, the meaning recoverable from the exophoric reference realised by each gesture is simply the meaning realised by the segment of writing in the environment of body language, not the physical boundaries of its realisation.

[2] To be clear, neither this type of gesture nor its meaning is illustrated in (8):

Why A Delineating Demarcation Gesture Is Neither Deictic Nor Delineating [1]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 174-5):

The feature [delineating] is realised through an embodied vector that configures one or more borders – as in example (11). The image shows a number of lists of thematic categories on the whiteboard. In sync with the underlining in language, the teacher’s left hand is angled at the wrist with fingers straightened to configure PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS as [delineating]. She is identifying the border between the category heading work and the related list of words underneath.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As before, this gesture does not serve a deictic function because it does not realise a distinction in relation to the here-&-now of the speaker/gesturer.

[2] To be clear, the meaning recoverable from the exophoric reference realised by this gesture is the vertical list of words 'related to the Theme of work'. The actual division between the title and the list of words is irrelevant to the meaning made in the speaker's text, so drawing attention to it with a gesture would serve no purpose.

Misrepresenting The Relative Size Of Referents As Deixis

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 174):

The three images in (10) show variations in SCOPE of paralinguistic deixis through vectors expressed with hand or fingers. SCOPE varies from relatively [broad] via the palm of the hand in image 1, to relatively [narrow] via an index finger in image 2, to maximally [narrow] via a little finger in image 3.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, these gestures make exophoric reference to metaphenomena in the environment of the paralanguage through physical contact. The identity that recoverable from the different finger gestures in the second and third images is a written word [narrow], whereas the identity that recoverable from the splayed hand gesture is a written paragraph [broad]. The efficacy of the latter gesture diminishes rapidly with distance between the gesture and the referent. Again, 'broad' and 'narrow' are features that distinguish the size of referents. They are not deictic in function because they do not make distinctions with regard to the here-&-now of the speaker/gesturer.

Confusing Reference With Engagement

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 173-4):

In (9), from our cultural studies lecture, the lecturer is eliciting responses from students in relation to a projected orientalist image.

In the first image in (9), the lecturer verbally refers non-specifically to any student as a potential respondent (anyone). In paralanguage synchronous with underlined spoken language she extends both forearms with supine hands in front of her body – angling them outwards at roughly 45°. The deictic gestures select for relatively [broad] in SCOPE – the two diverging vectors effectively identify the whole class. 

In the second image, synchronous with the lexical construal of a location in up the back, the lecturer points with an index finger, narrowing the SCOPE of identification to a specific student.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, anyone has no reference function because it does not signal that a specific identity is recoverable elsewhere. Non-specific determiners like any do not function as reference items (Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 365).

[2] To be clear, in the first image, these are not pointing gestures, which is consistent with the absence of reference in the language it accompanies. Instead, on the authors' own model, the supine hands realise the engagement feature 'expansion', acknowledging other voices, which is consistent with the instantiation of the engagement feature 'expansion' in the language it accompanies.

[3] To be clear, if the gesture is interpreted as pointing to the whole class, then the feature 'broad' describes the referent, the class.

[4] To be clear, in the second image, the gesture simply makes exophoric reference to the environment of the paralanguage: to a student remote from the speaker.

Problems With The 'Deictic' Systems Of Range: Scope And Demarcation

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 173, 169):

To the partial system network of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS presented in Figure 6.2 we now add a simultaneous system of RANGE in Figure 6.3. …

RANGE itself involves choices in two simultaneous systems, SCOPE and DEMARCATION. SCOPE concerns the relative mass (volume or quantity) of phenomena identified in an expression of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS. The slanted square bracket indicates a graded (rather than an either/or) system – a pointing gesture can be relatively [narrow] or [broad] in SCOPE.

The selection of SCOPE as relatively [narrow] or [broad] can support the identification of the quantity or volume of entities encompassed in a deictic gesture – for example, as a single entity among others or as an entire group of entities.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained for Figure 6.2, the upper network is not a system of DEIXIS, but a classification of referents in the environment of body language. Some of the referents are distinguished in terms of deixis (self vs other, 'home' vs 'away'), but most are not (actual vs virtual, semiosis vs location, retrospective vs prospective). Moreover, the network presents referents as realised by the gestures that point to them (cf. referent 'dog' realised by reference item 'this'), and in four cases, referents are realised by the insertion (+) of a pointing gesture into some unacknowledged structure. And in one case, the feature 'virtual', the referent is realised by the structural insertion of a gesture that does not point to it (+ unresolved vector).

Of the extensions to Figure 6.2 in Figure 6.3, the system of SCOPE is also not a system of DEIXIS, but a classification of referents — their scope — in the environment of body language (see also the following post). On the other hand, the system of DEMARCATION is not a system of DEIXIS, because deixis is concerned with distinctions in relation to the speaker, whereas demarcation is not. And the feature 'tracing' is said to be realised by the insertion (+) of motion into some unacknowledged structure.