The Authors' General Model Of Sonovergent And Semovergent Systems

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 211):

Our expectation is that each new register will lead to reconsideration of the details of the specific paralinguistic systems proposed in Chapters 4, 5 and 6. We do hope on the other hand that our general model of sonovergent and semovergent systems will stand a longer test of time and prove a productive framework for exploring the contribution of gesture, body orientation, position and movement, facial expression, gaze and voice quality to face-to-face interaction. … As functional linguists, we have been sidelining paralanguage for far too long.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors' distinction between sonovergent and semovergent paralanguage is their rebranding of Cléirigh's distinction between linguistic and epilinguistic body language. As explained throughout, the authors' sonovergent paralanguage is language, not paralanguage. And as demonstrated throughout, the authors include protolinguistic body language in their semovergent paralanguage, despite the fact that this is a rebranding of body language that is only made possible by the prior evolution and development of language. Either of these misunderstandings, alone, invalidates the authors' model.

[2] Here again Martin justifies his work as the righting of a wrong. Cf. Martin & Doran (2023: 44):

Structure markers make important contributions to the realisation of systemic options in many languages… . Our goal here has been to suggest a way forward for grammarians disposed towards granting these structural orphans a home.

The sentiment might be summarised as "Make Paralanguage Great Again".

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).

Misunderstanding Emblems As An Expression Form Of Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 203, 204):

In reviewing our proposals for sonovergent and semovergent systems, it is important to keep in mind that we are treating emblems as part of the expression form of language and not as paralanguage (Figure 7.4) – and thus excluded thumbs-up or thumbs-down (as praise or censure), index finger touching lips (for ‘quiet please’), hand cupped over ear (for ‘I can’t hear’) and so on from our description. Our reasoning was presented in Chapter 1, Section 1.6. This was the basis of our argument that semovergent paralanguage cannot be used to support NEGOTIATION by distinguishing move types in dialogic exchanges (although sonovergent paralanguage can of course support tone choice in relation to these moves).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, emblems involve both content and expression, and so are not merely an expression form. Moreover, they are not language because their content plane is not stratified into semantics and grammar. Instead, the use emblems requires the prior evolution and development of language, as demonstrated by the fact that other species do not use them, and so are classified as 'epilinguistic' in Cléirigh's model, which does indeed make them 'semovergent' in the authors' model. See also the previous post: Emblems As Language Expressions.

[2] Figure 7.4 misrepresents all language content as 'form'. To be clear, the only form on the content plane is the formal constituency of grammar: clause, phrase, group, word, morpheme.

[3] See the previous post: The Argument That 'Emblems' Are Part Of Language.

[4] To be clear, the authors (p202) have themselves presented an instance of a move type, a gestured command, but failed to recognise it as a SPEECH FUNCTION:

She then mimes his ideational paralanguage as he twice gestures for her to leave (including a deictic pointing gesture).

Mime As Semovergent Paralanguage That Does Not Accompany Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 200-1, 202-3):

An important exception to these principles is what is commonly referred to as mime. In terms of our model mime is semovergent paralanguage that does not accompany language, an apparent contradiction in terms. To explore this further we will return to a miming segment in our vlogger’s ‘Parking Lot’ phase. …

In this sequence, there is a miming segment where tone groups might have been, as the vlogger mimes the paralanguage of her parking spot assailant. She first mimes his exasperation. 

She then mimes his ideational paralanguage as he twice gestures for her to leave (including a deictic pointing gesture).

The third time his motion gesture is mimed in fact concurs with language.

As we can see, the two miming segments are heavily co-textualised by language that makes explicit what is going on. The orientation to the narrative introduces the recurrent problem of someone following the vlogger in a parking lot and waiting for her to leave. The miming segments are introduced with an incomplete tone group //3 cars be- / hind him and he was like // [mimics man’s gesture and expression] //, with a missing Tonic segment. The vlogger then mimes the expected information before making it linguistically explicit in a tone group converging with the third iteration of the gesture.  

Setting aside the mime performances of mime artists (the ‘art of silence’ Marcel Marceau referred to), we can predict that co-textualisation of this kind is a generalisable pattern as far as semovergent paralanguage (in the absence of language) is concerned. What the moment of mime does not provide as far as language is concerned, the immediately preceding and following co-text does. The convergent nature of semovergent paralanguage as a recurrent pattern is clear.

Blogger Comments:

With the exception of the correction of 'pantomime' to 'mime', all but the first paragraph is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 26). See the original review at Mime As Paralanguage.

[1] Importantly, this is an instance of using body language to depict body language. In Cléirigh's original model, the miming body language is epilinguistic, since it is a depiction that is only made possible by the ontogenesis of language, as evinced by the inability of other animals to do it.

The body language of the motorist, on the other hand, is at first protolinguistic (personal microfunction: exasperation) and then epilinguistic (SPEECH FUNCTION: gesturing a command for her to leave).

[2] As the authors demonstrate, this type of mime does indeed accompany language, thereby invalidating their model of mime as semovergent paralanguage that does not accompany language.

[3] Significantly, the authors do not actually identify the system of linguistic meaning that the mime is said to converge with in their model, being only concerned to relate this semovergent paralanguage to phonology, as if it were sonovergent instead. The authors frequently state categorically that paralanguage cannot "converge" with NEGOTIATION (p29, 34, 38, 203), which the gesture of a command, above, clearly contradicts.

Blatantly Claiming Credit For Cléirigh's Work

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

We used metafunction to distinguish between paralanguage systems converging with ideational, interpersonal or textual meaning (Figure 7.3).

Seen in these terms, sonovergent paralanguage resonates with interpersonal meaning and syncs with textual meaning; there is no sonovergent concurrence with ideational meaning. Semovergent paralanguage on the other hand resonates with interpersonal meaning, coordinates with textual meaning and concurs with ideational meaning.

Blogger Comments:

This is very misleading indeed, because these distinctions were already present in Cléirigh's model, below, and were not the work of the authors. The plagiarism in this work is more blatant when Martin is the author, as in this chapter.

Linguistic ("sonovergent"):

Epilinguistic ("semovergent"):

Importantly, "sonovergent paralanguage" is the linguistic realisation of grammatical systems, and "semovergent paralanguage", being epilinguistic, has no grammar, but has meaning that derives from the fact that its users have a grammar.

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.

What The Authors Say They Did vs What The Authors Actually Did

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 198, 199, 240n):

We then moved to build a general model of paralanguage, drawing on the concept of stratification (levels of abstraction) and metafunction (kinds of meaning) in systemic functional linguistics (SFL) theory.¹ We used stratification to distinguish between paralanguage that converges with the prosodic phonology (intonation and rhythm) of spoken language and paralanguage that converges with its discourse semantics (IDEATION, APPRAISAL, IDENTIFICATION and PERIODICITY) – sonovergent versus semovergent paralanguage, respectively (Figure 7.2).

¹ In this respect our model contrasts with the syntax, semantics and pragmatics framework assumed in most related studies. We do not oppose form to meaning (syntax vs semantics); and we do not conflate resources enacting social relations with those composing information flow (as pragmatics).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading indeed. The authors actually began with Cléirigh's general model of body language that was already organised in terms of stratification and metafunction. The plagiarism in this book is effected through myriad small steps.

[2] To be clear, what the authors actually did was rebrand Cléirigh's 'linguistic' body language as 'sonovergent' paralanguage and Cléirigh's 'epilinguistic' body language as 'semovergent' paralanguage. This created many of the inconsistencies that invalidate the authors' entire model of paralanguage. To explain:

The distinction in Cléirigh's model is between body language that functions as protolanguage ('protolinguistic'), body language that functions as language ('linguistic'), and body language made possible by the evolution and development of language ('epilinguistic'). That is, the types are distinguished in terms of semogenesis: phylogenesis and ontogenesis.

Despite semogenesis being the criterion for these types, the authors renamed the types as if they differed in terms of the linguistic strata they converged with. This generated many confusions. The notion of convergence arose in the first place because the authors misunderstood paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system. This led two of the authors, Martin & Zappavigna (2019), to conclude that paralanguage is an expression system of language — evidence here — thereby invalidating the notion of convergence. 

In this publication, the misunderstanding of paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system persists in Chapter 1 and Chapter 4 (ideational semovergent paralanguage). In contrast, Chapter 5 (interpersonal semovergent paralanguage) and Chapter 6 (textual semovergent paralanguage) understand paralanguage as both content and expression, thereby making the notion of 'semovergence' with language redundant.

And as previously observed, because 'sonovergent paralanguage' serves the same functions as prosodic phonology, it is language, not paralanguage, and so realises grammatical systems (INFORMATION and KEY) rather than "converging" with vocal tract systems.

[3] This is a serious misunderstanding of SFL Theory. Of course SFL opposes 'form to meaning': phonology is form, semantics is meaning, and lexicogrammar is form interpreted in terms of its function in realising meaning.

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.

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.

Confusing Endophoric Reference With Information Focus

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

Opposing features of [home] and [away] are illustrated in the two images in (8).

In the first image, synchronous with today, the lecturer’s pinched left thumb and index finger configures a vector pointing down in front of the lecturer’s body, in an expression of [home]. 

In the second image, synchronous with future, the right hand and forearm extend from the body pointing to a location to the right, expressing [away]. 

The second image additionally shows the left index finger pointing outwards from the body and slightly to the speaker’s left. The completion of this point synchronises with the completion of that to the right. The simultaneity of the two points delineates a space between present and future – a critical issue with respect to questions of fact or opinion.

Blogger Comments:

[1] 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.

[2] To be clear, this is another example of using body language to make endophoric reference.  In this instance, the left-right dimension represents the past-future dimension of interpersonal time (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 332), and the pointing gesture signals 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.

[3] To be clear, the timing of gestures does not have a referential function, because the timing does not point to a referent that can recover the identity of the timing. The timing may have demarcative function ('completion'), but demarcation is not reference.

Moreover, 'same time' does not delineate the time interval between 'present' and 'future', if only because 'same time' can be located in the present, in the future, and at every location in between.

Reference Endophoric To Body Language [2]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 171-2, 166):

The selection [virtual:location] is also realised paralinguistically through an unresolved vector. The more delicate choice [home] is realised by identifying a space occupied by the speaker; and the opposing choice [away] is realised by pointing to a space other than the space occupied by the speaker (Figure 6.2). 

Paralinguistic expressions of [home] and [away] can converge with the identification of both time and space in verbal discourse. The feature [home] can accordingly converge with both ‘here’ and ‘now’. As noted by Calbris (2011: 128), past time may be pointed to as a location behind a speaker. Where the past is expressed in language in relation to the future, synchronous paralinguistic deixis typically points to a space to the left of the speaker then to the right.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, to claim that a pointing gesture that identifies a location in space is an "unresolved" vector is self-contradiction, since the vector is "resolved" by the location that it points to. So, in such instances, the deixis is not virtual.

[2] As previously explained, Figure 6.2 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).

[3] To be clear, this is another example of using body language to make endophoric reference. In the previous example, material elements of outer experience (mouth, temple) ideationally construe semiotic elements of inner experience (word, encode), and the pointing gesture signals that those meanings are recoverable from those construals by body language. In this example, the left-right dimension of interpersonal space ideationally construes the past-future dimension of interpersonal time (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 144, 332), and the pointing gesture signals that those meanings are recoverable from those construals by body language. Again, the vector is "resolved" and so the "deixis" is not virtual.