Misrepresenting Paralinguistic Deixis And The Problem With Presuming Reference

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 162-3):

The management of information flow in discourse is supported by the system of textual semovergence we refer to as PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS. Here the focus is on how paralanguage supports the introduction of people, things and places into texts and keeps track of them once there (Martin, 1992: 95). This section begins with a brief overview of the linguistic system of IDENTIFICATION. … 

The IDENTIFICATION system in English discourse semantics draws a basic distinction between presenting reference, which introduces entities in discourse, and presuming reference, which tracks them once there. …

The types of entities (Hao, 2020a) introduced by presenting reference include people (anyone), concrete thing entities (a stripy shirt, a beautiful green scarf) and semiotic entities (some of the key things, what kind of sense, what feeling, an idea). The linguistic resources deployed include non-specific determiners (e.g. a, an, some), an indefinite nominal group (anyone) and several instances of a ‘wh’ entity (what). …

Proper names also function as presuming reference.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this 'presuming reference' is Martin's rebranding of anaphoric reference (Halliday & Hasan 1976). It will be seen in later posts that the reference in the system of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS is exophoric, not endophoric, and so does not "support" keeping track of people, things and places 'once there' in the text.

[2] To be clear, the notion of 'presenting reference' (Martin 1992) confuses referents with reference items (his, that etc.). It arises from confusing 'reference' as textual meaning with 'reference' as the ideational meaning of lexical items. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 33):

[3] To be clear, none of these resources indicate a recoverable identity elsewhere, so none of them function as reference items.

Why Facial Affect Is More Limited Than Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 121):

As noted earlier, ATTITUDE in language can be expressed through systems of AFFECT, APPRECIATION or JUDGEMENT while paralinguistic expressions of ATTITUDE are restricted to FACIAL AFFECT (see, e.g. Tian, 2011). This means that the paralinguistic meaning potential for expressing emotion is relatively limited with respect to language. 

For example, an array of finely distinguished lexical instantiations of the feature [realis: happiness; mood; positive] (Table 5.1) are possible, as, for instance, in happy/joyful/delighted/thrilled and so on, such fine distinctions are not available in FACIAL AFFECT. 

In analyses of intermodal resonance in Coraline, fine distinctions in verbal instances (e.g. happy vs joyful) may be inferred for resonant facial expressions but cannot be attributed to specific variations in the facial expression. In other words a given expression of FACIAL AFFECT might couple with a diverse array of lexical realisations of [realis: happiness; mood; positive].

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this relative limitation with respect to language is simply explained by the fact that the facial expression of emotion is a protolinguistic semiotic system, which means it lacks a grammatical stratum.

Appraisal: Meaning Beyond The Clause

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 16):

In terms of meaning beyond the clause APPRAISAL allows us, for example, to evaluate indefinitely long phases of discourse. The extended connexion example we used as (25) earlier does more than elaborate a proposition; it also positions viewers to bond attitudinally in a specific way around a recurring parking lot event.

(25')

Oh another thing that has been really annoying this summer is –

⇓

you know when you go to a parking lot and it’s a busy place. You get in your car and you don’t necessarily want to leave immediately. Like you might want to – I might want to have Henry test his blood sugar, give the kids snacks. Or if we were at the pool, like change or look at my phone or send a text message or whatever. It drives me crazy when a car is like sitting there following you and then they just wait for you to leave.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, for Halliday (2008: 179), ATTITUDE is a grammatical system realised by the selection of lexical items, so any meaning 'beyond the clause' is realised textually through lexical cohesion.

[2] To be clear, APPRAISAL is enacted in the unfolding of discourse, the creation of text, logogenesis.

[3] To be clear, this instance is not the elaboration of a proposition. Ideationally, it is the elaboration of a Value by a Token, where, textually, the Value is the point of departure for the Token. Interpersonally, the clause realises a single proposition, with several clauses embedded in the Complement realising several propositions.

Appraisal: Lexicogrammatical Diversification

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 15):

APPRAISAL comprises resources for enacting social relations by sharing attitudes (Martin and White 2005). In terms of diversification it allows us, for example, to realise affect across a range of grammatical structures:

(43) Regrettably she left the parking lot.
(44) She regretfully left the parking lot.
(45) She’s regretful because she left the parking lot.
(46) Our regretful vlogger swore not to do it again.
(47) She regretted her behaviour.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, for Halliday (2008: 49, 179), the system of APPRAISAL is a lexicogrammatical system that shades the borderline between grammar and lexis, within which ATTITUDE is a grammatical system realised by the selection of lexical items:

With options in the way something is evaluated (“I approve / I disapprove”), or contended (“I agree / I disagree”), the borderline between grammar and lexis is shaded over; systems of APPRAISAL, as described by Martin & White (2005), represent more delicate (more highly differentiated) options within the general region of evaluation. … [ATTITUDE] is a grammatical system that is realised by a selection of lexical items. 

This is borne out by the authors' examples, which show AFFECT realised by lexical items in different grammatical structures.