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.

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.

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 Authors' Analysis Of Paralinguistic Engagement

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 157, 158):

A final analytical step involves an exploration of PARALINGUISTIC ENGAGEMENT and features of [heteroglossic:contraction] and [heteroglossic:expansion]. Relevant here are shifts in body posture in the sequence of four images. In the first image (the angry stomp), the upper body and head are in a prone (closed) position. The torso remains prone in the second and third images, at the same time as the head/face is progressively raised from prone to neutral in the final image. These realisations of [contraction] are accompanied in the second and third images with realisations of [heteroglossic:expansion] – as Coraline moves her arms and hands to an open supine position by her sides, and in addition raises her eyes in the third image. 

In the final image in (30), Coraline’s face continues to express [anger]. Although she stands upright, her posture is prone in certain respects – her shoulders are rounded, her arms are close to her body and her hands are clasped, closing off her torso (enacting [contraction]). At the same time, however, her head and face are decentred – an expression of [heteroglossic:expansion] (Hao and Hood, 2019).

The apparently disjunctive concatenation of options in PARALINGUISTIC ENGAGEMENT needs to be interpreted in relation to the attendant semovergence. From the perspective of affiliation, as discussed earlier, the rhetorical question in the spoken text functions as a firm rejection of Wybie’s tendered coupling; it is this discourse move that resonates with the prone features of Coraline’s posture – those realising [contraction]. At the same time the supine features of her posture – those realising [expansion] – open up space for ongoing interaction and the negotiation of other potential bonds. The semiotic resources of the body negotiate relations on two fronts simultaneously – retrospective [contraction] and [prospective expansion].

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in terms of ENGAGEMENT, the question If I'm a water witch, then where's my secret well is an instance of [heteroglossic: contraction: disclaim]. Martin & White (2003: 118):

Under disclaim we cover those formulations by which some prior utterance or some alternative position is invoked so as to be directly rejected, replaced or held to be unsustainable.

Given that there is no heteroglossic expansion instantiated in language, the authors are faced with the contradiction that the representation of body language on the clay puppet also realises [expansion], according to their model. The authors' solution is to interpret the expansion gestures as opening up space for further dialogue.

However, this interpretation is clearly inconsistent with the meanings being enacted at this point in the text, especially in light of the fact that, of the two types of expansion [entertain] and [attribute], the only option open to body language here would be [entertain] . Martin & White (2003: 104):

We begin with what we term ‘entertain’ – those wordings by which the authorial voice indicates that its position is but one of a number of possible positions and thereby, to greater or lesser degrees, makes dialogic space for those possibilities. …

Under the heading of ‘attribution’, we deal with those formulations which disassociate the proposition from the text’s internal authorial voice by attributing it so some external source.

Clearly, then where's my secret well is not making dialogic space for other possibilities. This suggests that there are serious problems with the authors' model of PARALINGUISTIC ENGAGEMENT.

Problems With The Authors' Analysis Of Paralinguistic Engagement

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 143, 144-5):

The primary opposing features are [monogloss] in which other voices are ignored, and [heterogloss] in which other voices are implicitly or explicitly allowed into the discourse. If [heterogloss] is selected, the opposing features are [heterogloss: expansion], allowing space for other voices, or [heterogloss: contraction], closing down space for other voices. …

Instances of gesture and posture realising PARALINGUISTIC ENGAGEMENT options are shown in (22).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the wording Be strong Coraline is [monogloss], not [heterogloss], because it does not allow other voices into the discourse. So, in this instance, the compressed face actually expresses [monogloss], not heterogloss: contraction], contradicting the authors' system.

[2] To be clear, the wordings

Dad I'm not five anymore

Don't believe me

I didn't break it

are all [heterogloss: contraction], not [heterogloss: expansion], because they all close down the space for other voices. So, in these instances, the

prone head; closed body
open face; decentred head
supine head and hands; open body

all express [heterogloss: contraction], not [heterogloss: expansion], contradicting the authors' system.

Problems With The System Of Paralinguistic Engagement

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 144):

From a social semiotic approach, Hood (2011) considers how embodied paralanguage resonates with linguistic ENGAGEMENT resources (see Figure 5.13).

 

For example, a prone (palm down) hand gesture realises [contraction] and functions to close down space for the negotiation of propositions or proposals. A supine (palm up) hand gesture realises [expansion] and functions to open up space for negotiation. Hao and Hood (2019) and Hood and Zhang (2020) also discuss an oscillating movement of the hand as softening focus in relation to the fulfilment or actualisation of a propositional figure, while additionally realising [heteroglossic: expansion]. Heteroglossic [expansion] and [contraction] are frequently realised through the positioning of the hands but can also be expressed through a more general open or closed posture of the body torso or the positioning of the head. An open face (tilted upwards) realising [expansion] will also display relaxed rather than compressed facial muscles.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear ,the system in Figure 5.13 models paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system, and although this is consistent with the notion of a semiotic system, it is inconsistent with the preceding chapters in which paralanguage is misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. Where in previous chapters it was just paralinguistic expression that was semovergent with language, in this chapter it is both paralinguistic content and expression that is semovergent with language.

[2] Importantly, this use of body language requires the prior evolution of language — it is not found in pre-linguistic species — and so is epilinguistic, in terms of Cléirigh's model. This contrasts with the prior discussion in this chapter of the bodily expression of emotion, which is found in pre-linguistic species, and so is protolinguistic, in terms of Cléirigh's model.