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).

Misrepresenting Cléirigh's Model As The Authors' Innovation

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

As reviewed in Section 7.1, our project involves developing paralanguage as a semiotic system alongside language. We adopted our model of the relation of paralanguage to language from earlier work on the convergence of language and image in children’s picture books (Painter et al., 2013). As outlined in Table 7.1, sonovergence was explored in terms of how linguistic and paralinguistic systems resonate with one another (interpersonal meaning) and sync with one another (textual meaning).

Blogger Comments:

This is very misleading indeed. The origin of the notions of gestures being in tune with TONE, and in sync with TONICITY and RHYTHM is Cléirigh's model (2009), which predates, by four years, the "earlier" work on the convergence of language and image in children’s picture books (Painter et al., 2013):

The plagiarism in this work is effected through myriad small steps with Martin, the author of this chapter, the driving force.

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.

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.

The Unacknowledged Information Unit

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

It is important to recall here that clause and tone group may or may not map onto each other (Chapter 3), as evident in (19) and (19'). In (19) the underlining in each clause specifies Theme. However, New is specified in the tone group as the tonic syllable that composes phonological prominence through the major pitch movement of the tone group. This is shown in bold italics in (19').

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses content with expression. To be clear, New is a function in the structure of an information unit. A tone group realises an information unit, and its tonic realises the Focus of New information. It will be seen later that an explicit recognition of the information unit makes the problems with PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY more obvious.

[2] This confuses TONICITY with TONE. To be clear, the tonic syllable doesn't "compose" phonological prominence through the major pitch movement. The tonic is distinguished in terms of relative loudness ± duration. It is the pitch movement at the tonic that identifies the tone of the tone group.

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.

Misunderstanding Textual Prominence

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

A paralinguistic beat can also give prominence to interpersonal meaning. The hand beat in image 5 of (17'') not only syncs with the final tonic segment form, but its low-falling trajectory is interpersonally ‘in tune with’ the major pitch contour of a falling tone 1 (see Chapters 3 and 5) – prominence is thus added to the meaning of this tone (here, providing information). 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, because the hand beat serves the same linguistic tonicity, it gives prominence to whatever metafunctional meaning it highlights as the New element of an information unit.

[2] To be clear, form is the tonic syllable, not the tonic segment. The tonic segment begins with the tonic foot and includes all subsequent feet in the tone group.

[3] To be clear, the direction of a beating gesture does not distinguish tones. For example, there is no rising beat for tone 2, no level beat for tone 3, no fall-rise beat for tone 4, and no rise-fall beat for tone 5. A downward movement is the default direction, regardless of the tone.

[4] This confuses the textual function of TONICITY with the interpersonal function of TONE. The choice of tonic prominence realises the choice of New information, whereas the choice of tone realises the choice of KEY for a given choice of MOOD. The choice of tonic gives prominence to an element of structure, not to the choice of tone.

[5] This confuses SPEECH FUNCTION (semantics) with KEY (lexicogrammar). 'Giving information' (statement) is SPEECH FUNCTION, and it is realised in the grammar by MOOD. The system of TONE, on the other hand, realises the system of KEY for a given MOOD.

Problems With The Authors' Intonational Analysis

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 182):

In the unmarked case, salient syllables highlight content words (not grammatical ones) and assign a secondary degree of prominence to that information in the discourse. However, in (17) there are two marked instances where grammatical words are made salient: not in the second tone group and is in the third.

These marked choices give prominence to contrastive positions in the discourse (in this case, that which is and is not knowledge). In the first two tone groups the tonic syllables (in bold) carry tone 4 pitch contours. This falling-rising tone movement indicates pending meaning. The tone 1 of the third tone group signals completion.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, with regard to TONE, it is tone 3 that serves this textual function (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 440), and it is likely that the speaker selected tone 3, not tone 4. Tone 4 would be unlikely here because it would realise 'reservation' in terms of KEY, which is inconsistent the proposition being enacted. The fall-rise of tone 4 signals 'seems certain (fall) but isn't (rise)'.

In terms of TONALITY and TONICITY, it is likely that the second tone group actually consists of two tone groups, with the first tonic on not, to mark the contrast as New information for the student audience.

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).

The Authors' Intention In Chapter 5

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 159):

Researchers from both social semiotics and linguistics (Thibault, 2004; Feng and O’Halloran, 2013; Mondada, 2016; Lim, 2019) have recently raised the challenge of developing a holistic approach to the study of social interaction. They argue persuasively that it is not sufficient to single out just one or two semiotic modes for examination (e.g. language and facial expression or language and gesture) if we are to understand the meaning of social interactions. 

The intention in this chapter is to respond to the challenge by providing a systemic functional social semiotic account of a number of paralinguistic systems as a framework for studying the orchestration of multiple semiotic modes in interaction in the expression of interpersonal meaning and the enactment of social relations in the context of animated film. 

We look forward to reports of research adapting our framework to the study of interpersonal relations in other modalities of interaction, in film, theatre, clinical, educational and forensic contexts, casual conversation and beyond, and additionally to its application in educational contexts. In relation to the latter, as an exemplary animation of its kind, Coraline offers a significant educational resource.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the extent to which the authors have succeeded in responding to this challenge can be gauged by carefully considering all the posts that examine this chapter (here).

[2] To be clear, the representations of body language on clay puppets by animators using the emotion-face coding system of Ekman are not instances of the system of human body language, and so do not constitute valid data for theorising.

[3] To be clear, the authors' framework is their misunderstanding of Cléirigh's framework.

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 A Discourse Move

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 156, 157-8):

In Coraline’s first encounter with Wybie, a boy of her own age from the same neighbourhood, he accuses her of being a water witch to which she responds: //3 ^ and if / I’m a / water / witch //1 ^ then / where’s the secret / well //. The focus in (30) is on the second tone group of this utterance, that is, //1 ^ then / where’s the secret / well //. … 

In the spoken language of this tone group there is apparently no resonant inscribed or invoked linguistic AFFECT. However, before we assume a divergent semovergent relation, there is more to be considered in the verbal and imagic co-text. 

The spoken language in (30) configures a question through a wh- interrogative on a falling tone 1 (signalling ‘certainty’). Taken in conjunction with the PARALINGUISTIC expressions [anger], this discourse move (then where’s the secret well) can be interpreted as a rhetorical question, one that challenges Wybie’s judgemental accusation that she is a water witch. From the perspective of affiliation and the negotiation of bonds (Section 5.3.4), Coraline is forcefully rejecting the coupling proposed by Wybie.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the 'certainty' realised by tone 1 is 'polarity known'. Halliday (1994: 302):

[2] This misunderstands both the text and the notion of a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is one that does not demand information from an addressee. The question then where’s the secret well is not rhetorical, because demands from the addressee the information that would validate the proposition that she is a water witch.

Problems With The Authors' Analysis Of The Resonance Of Affect And Force

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 156, 157):

In Coraline’s first encounter with Wybie, a boy of her own age from the same neighbourhood, he accuses her of being a water witch to which she responds: //3 ^ and if / I’m a / water / witch //1 ^ then / where’s the secret / well //. The focus in (30) is on the second tone group of this utterance, that is, //1 ^ then / where’s the secret / well //. … 

The first image in (30) captures Coraline forcefully stomping her right foot and punching down with her arms and clenched hands in an expression of PARALINGUISTIC AFFECT – [anger] with [strong] FORCE. The voice quality on where realises VOICE AFFECT as [anger] – through high intensity, tension and roughness (shown as the grey area in the spectrogram in (30)). Coraline’s face is not visible in the first image; but a prosody of FACIAL AFFECT [anger] is additionally realised more or less intensively in the remaining three images – as the eyebrows are drawn down and together. These expressions of PARALINGUISTIC FORCE in realisations of [anger] resonate with and amplify one another.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the depiction of body language on an animated clay puppet is not body language, but an epilinguistic construal of body language, because the representation of body language on an animated clay puppet requires the prior development of language in the animator; it is not something that a dog or cat, for example, could do.

In considering the body language that is thus epilinguistically depicted:

[1] As previously explained, the beating of the foot and arms realises textual salience, and is linguistic, like the beats of speech. Here the authors again misconstrue this textual salience as interpersonal force (and as epilinguistic instead of linguistic).

[2] As previously explained, the bodily expression of emotion is protolinguistic, and so pre-metafunctional, because it does not require the prior evolution and development of language, as demonstrated by Darwin's work on the expression of emotions in other animal species. Here, however, the authors misconstrue the expression of emotion as requiring the prior evolution and development of language (epilinguistic) and locate it within the interpersonal metafunction, regardless of whether or not it is used to evaluate.

[3] To be clear, as the above demonstrates, the "resonance" here is between the protolinguistic expression of emotion (which other animals can do) and the linguistic expression of salience (which other animals cannot do).

The Claim That The Face Does Not Express Desire

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 152, 156):

The possibility of different paralinguistic resources being instantiated simultaneously allows us to infer meanings not necessarily interpretable from an expression in a single paralinguistic mode. For example, FACIAL AFFECT has no distinct option for the expression of desire. However, when raised eyebrows and wide-opened eyes (realising FACIAL AFFECT as [surprise]) are expressed convergently with PARALINGUISTIC PROXIMITY as [personal] and PARALINGUISTIC ORIENTATION as [involved], the emotion of desire is strongly invoked. Two such instances are described in (29).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is a serious omission in the authors' model. The bodily expression of desire is enshrined in Shakespeare's Julius Cæsar:

Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look

and at least one of the following facial expressions might reasonably be construed as expressing desire:

[2] To be clear, the authors' claim here is that a personal, involved expression of surprise "invokes" (i.e. evokes) an expression of desire. In contrast, none of the desiring faces above look at all surprised.

The Contextual Dependence Of The Meaning Of Body Orientation

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 149):

Greater or lesser involvement is realised through the horizontal angle between the characters and the presence or absence of accompanying gaze. At one end the features [involved] indicates maximum involvement though face-to-face orientation accompanied by mutual gaze. At the other end of the continuum there is an absence of involvement; the interlocutors share no gaze and have a widely oblique or even back-to-back orientation in relation to each other. Between these endpoints, body (and head) angle varies and involvement with the other may be enhanced by direct gaze or weakened by a lack of it. An oblique angle to another realises a [less involved] or relatively detached orientation, while face-to-back indicates [involvement sought] or a desire to engage and back-to-back indicates [uninvolved] or thorough disengagement. A side-by-side orientation on the other hand realises a solidarity relation but yet [less involved]. Note that the head and the body can be angled relatively independently so there are more points on the continuum than actually specified here.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the 'involvement' meanings of these body orientations depend crucially on context. For example, consider the "solidarity" of two strangers sitting side-by-side on public transport or in a waiting room, or the "involvement sought" of two strangers face-to-back in a queue, or in former times, of "uninvolved" orientation of two duellists standing back-to-back before trying to kill each other.

A Problem With The System Of Paralinguistic Orientation

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 149, 150):

Analogising from Kress and van Leeuwen’s account of viewer/depiction relations referred to as INVOLVEMENT, Painter et al. (2013) propose a system of body ORIENTATION as an additional means for interpreting relations between depicted characters in images. Figure 5.16 shows options in a system of PARALINGUISTIC ORIENTATION and how they are relatively positioned as degrees of involvement.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Kress and van Leeuwen’s original system is construed in terms of content (INVOLVEMENT), whereas the authors' rebranding of it is construed in terms of expression (ORIENTATION).

[2] To be clear, the system in Figure 5.16 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.

Not Acknowledging The Intellectual Source Of 'Paralinguistic Proximity'

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 147-8):

Opposing features in the system of PARALINGUISTIC PROXIMITY are: [personal], realised through close body positioning of characters vis-à-vis one another; [social] as realised through greater separation of the characters within a picture frame; and [impersonal] through distanced separation of the characters. These features are presented along a cline of PARALINGUISTIC PROXIMITY in Figure 5.15.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the unacknowledged intellectual source of the features of the authors' system of PARALINGUISTIC PROXIMITY is Edward T. Hall (1963):

Hall described the interpersonal distances of humans (the relative distances between people) in four distinct zones: 

• Intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering
  • Close phase – less than one inch (0.01 to 0.02 m)
  • Far phase – 6 to 18 inches (0.15 to 0.46 m)
• Personal distance for interactions among good friends or family
  • Close phase – 1.5 to 2.5 feet (0.46 to 0.76 m)
  • Far phase – 2.5 to 4 feet (0.76 to 1.22 m)
• Social distance for interactions among acquaintances
  • Close phase – 4 to 7 feet (1.2 to 2.1 m)
  • Far phase – 7 to 12 feet (2.1 to 3.7 m)
• Public distance used for public speaking
  • Close phase – 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 m)
  • Far phase – 25 feet (7.6 m) or more.

A chart depicting Edward T. Hall's interpersonal distances

[2] To be clear, the system in Figure 5.15 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.

Not Acknowledging The Intellectual Source Of 'Social Distance' And 'Proximity'

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 147):

Kress and van Leeuwen’s system of SOCIAL DISTANCE (2006) relates to the constructed social relation between viewer and depicted person and is realised through shot size (e.g. close-up versus long shot). Painter et al. (2013) adapt this notion of relative distance to refer to the constructed social relation between depicted characters within images as PROXIMITY.  

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, unacknowledged by the authors, the intellectual source of both Kress and van Leeuwen’s system of SOCIAL DISTANCE (2006) and the adaptation of their notion by Painter et al. (2013) as PROXIMITY is the work on proxemics by Edward T. Hall, published in 1963):

Edward T. Hall, the cultural anthropologist who coined the term in 1963, defined proxemics as "the interrelated observations and theories of humans' use of space as a specialised elaboration of culture". In his foundational work on proxemics, The Hidden Dimension, Hall emphasised the impact of proxemic behavior (the use of space) on interpersonal communication.

More specifically, both derive from the application of Edward T. Hall's proxemics to cinema. The work of Painter et al. (2013) derives from character proxemics, and the work of Kress and van Leeuwen derives from camera proxemics:

Proxemics is an essential component of cinematic mise-en-scène, the placement of characters, props and scenery within a frame, creating visual weight and movement. There are two aspects to the consideration of proxemics in this context, the first being character proxemics, which addresses such questions as: How much space is there between the characters?, What is suggested by characters who are close to (or, conversely, far away from) each other?, Do distances change as the film progresses? and, Do distances depend on the film's other content?

The other consideration is camera proxemics, which answers the single question: How far away is the camera from the characters/action? Analysis of camera proxemics typically relates Hall's system of proxemic patterns to the camera angle used to create a specific shot, with the long shot or extreme long shot becoming the public proxemic, a full shot (sometimes called a figure shot, complete view, or medium long shot) becoming the social proxemic, the medium shot becoming the personal proxemic, and the close up or extreme close up becoming the intimate proxemic.

Problems With The Authors' Analysis Of Paralinguistic Focus

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 146-7):

In (24), PARALINGUISTIC FOCUS as [sharpen] is expressed in the narrowly targeted index-finger point that zooms in towards the Other Mother. This expression of sharpened FOCUS functions to identify the target (Other Mother) in a highly specifying manner (see Chapter 6). This together with the expression of negative judgement in the spoken language in stole serves to amplify the expression of [disdain] in FACIAL AFFECT.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, GRADUATION is the scaling of an interpersonal APPRAISAL (Martin & White 2005: 135). The evaluation here is made through the process stole, so any upscaling of the evaluation must be an upscaling of stole not of the evaluated you. So there is no sharpening of the FOCUS of evaluation here (nor a quantifying of the FORCE of evaluation expressed by the extended arm). The interpersonal function of the orientation of the index-finger of the clay puppet here is simply deictic: it points to the addressee you from the speaker I .

[2] To be clear, this is an instance of 'pointing the finger' which is to accuse or blame (someone) — a 'j'accuse' — a gesture which the authors might easily have classified, in their own terms, as an emblem, since they write (p38):

Gestures treated as playing a speech functional role in dialogue in other models are treated as emblems in our framework.

In terms of Cléirigh's original model, this is a genuine example of epilinguistic body language — not to be found in protolinguistic species — in which the gesture expresses an appraisal of judgement, an accusation of wrongdoing, which the authors claimed (pp118, 121) that body language can not do.

[3] To be clear, the judgement instantiated as body language is consistent with the judgement instantiated as language. Whether or not the face of the clay puppet here specifically represents disdain, a feeling of contempt for someone or something regarded as unworthy or inferior is arguable, at the very least.

Problems With The Authors' Analysis Of Paralinguistic Force

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 146):

In (23), Coraline is arguing with her mother about why she has locked a tiny door. Convergent with dreams aren’t dangerous, her left hand depicts the proposition (dreams aren’t dangerous) as a semiotic entity (see Chapter 4) at the same time as her left arm is extended out front of her body. The expression realises PARALINGUISTIC FORCE as [quantify:size:extent]. In this instance FORCE is expressed in the embodied paralanguage but not in convergent spoken language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is a bare assertion since it is unsupported by argument: the ipse dixit fallacy. Moreover, it is demonstrably false. In terms of practicability, the reader is invited to use one hand to represent dreams aren’t dangerous as an entity. In terms of theory, if this were possible, it would be an instance of grammatical metaphor — a figure realised as an element (Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 250) — in a semiotic system without a grammar: a contradiction in terms.

[2] To be clear, the claim here is that the extending of an arm to represent the extent of an entity is an instance of GRADUATION, the scaling of an interpersonal APPRAISAL (Martin & White 2005: 135). This is demonstrably false. Firstly, the representation of the extent of an entity is an ideational construal, not an interpersonal appraisal. Secondly, the only entity here is dreams, and this mental 'process thing' (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 244) is clearly not represented by the hand, and the extent of the arm does not represent the extent (duration) of dreams. Thirdly, the evaluation here is made through the quality dangerous, so any upscaling of the evaluation must be an upscaling of dangerous not of dreams, and this the extending of the arm does not represent.

Moreover, this image contradicts the authors' model of PARALINGUISTIC ENGAGEMENT, because here a supine hand is used to represent the [monogloss] of dreams aren’t dangerous, whereas on the authors' model a supine hand represents not only [heterogloss], but [heterogloss: expansion], which is 'allowing space for other voices' (p143).