The Circular Reasoning Underlying 'Semovergence Implies Sonovergence'

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

It is probably fair to say that when semovergent paralanguage is deployed, it will almost always be coordinated with TONALITY, TONICITY and RHYTHM; this argues that semovergence implies sonovergence. Sonovergent paralanguage on the other hand can be deployed without semovergence, through gestures and body movement in tune with or in sync with prosodic phonology (but no more).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is an example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning known as begging the question' (petitio principii), because the argument's premiss assumes the conclusion instead of supporting it. 

Premiss: semovergent paralanguage is co-ordinated with textual phonology

Conclusion: semovergent paralanguage is co-ordinated with textual phonology (= sonovergent)

[2] To be clear, this is because language ("sonovergent paralanguage") can be deployed without body language ("semovergent paralanguage").

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' 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).

Simultaneous Emotion

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 123-4):

A further consideration in analysing and interpreting facial expressions is the potential for one feature of facial affect to transition very quickly into another in an animated expression. An instance in example (4) expresses both [surprise] and [spirit:up]. 

From a systemic functional perspective, rather than describing this as a blending or merging of emotions it is considered as the co-instantiation of two different emotions with each realised through particular parts of the face (e.g. eyes, eyebrows, mouth) and often in very quick succession. In (4) the raised curved eyebrows realise [surprise] and the upturned lips realise [spirit:up]. 

A facial expression of [surprise], interpreted as a perturbance (Martin, 2017a) typically has the briefest duration and often transitions quickly to the expression of another emotion, one which responds to the specific trigger of the perturbance.

Blogger Comments:

[1] From a systemic functional perspective, this blurs the axial distinction between simultaneous systems ('both', 'co-instantiation', 'and') and syntagmatic order ('transition', 'succession'). Moreover, if two emotions can be realised in the same facial expression, the system network needs to be redrawn to represent simultaneous (conjunct) systems. This the authors have not done.

[2] On the one hand, the claim that a facial expression of surprise typically has the briefest duration is an instance of the logical fallacy known as ipse dixit: a bare assertion unsupported by evidence, and is belied by synonyms for 'surprised' such as 'stupefied' and 'dumbfounded'. On the other hand, surprise is the emotion that is the response to what triggered it as a perturbance.

Why The Argument For Ideational Convergence (Concurrence) Is Invalid

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 94-5):

Here we draw on the concept of commitment ‘which refers to the amount of meaning instantiated as a text unfolds’ (Martin, 2011b: 255) as developed in Martinec (2008) and Martin (2010). 

Language and paralanguage can vary in terms of the amount of meaning that is specified by each semiotic mode. For instance, returning again to the example from the ‘Visit to the Dermatologist’ phase, and as noted in Chapter 1, some entities were committed in the language alone (e.g. the occurrence film in I didn’t film it) and not in the paralanguage. 

There can also be differences in how delicately meaning is committed in language and paralanguage. For example, the needle and the foot bump were more delicately committed in the paralanguage than in language, as far as qualities such as size and shape are concerned. 

So rather than separating gestures into a catalogue of types based on their purported resemblance to things in the world, the approach adopted in this chapter considers how gestures function as a resource which supports ideational meaning-making – focusing on how they concur with ideational discourse semantic selections.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this is the authors' argument for modelling paralanguage as convergent with ideational discourse semantics. It can be characterised as:

Premiss 1: Some meanings are made in language, but not in paralanguage.

Premiss 2: Paralanguage and language vary in the degree to which meanings are specified.

Conclusion: Paralanguage will be modelled as realising the ideational meaning of language.

There are two basic reasons why this argument is fallacious. The first is formal: the conclusion does not logically follow from the premisses, since the variation across modes is distinct from the question of whether one realises ("supports") the other. The second is informal: in the premisses and the conclusion, the authors misunderstand paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system ('gestures'). See further below.

[1] As previously explained (here), Martin's notion of commitment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the system network, namely: that a speaker can choose the degree of delicacy to be instantiated during logogenesis. That is, it confuses systemic delicacy, in this case, with the degree to which a Thing (needle, bump) is expanded by Qualities (size, shape).

[2] As previously explained, it was not the needle that was gestured, but how a needle is held, and it was not simply the bump that was gestured, but the bubbling up of the bump (granuloma) after an injection.

[3] To be clear, both of these alternatives misunderstand paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system ('gestures'), and the second preferred alternative proposes that this expression-only system realises ('supports') the ideational meanings of language.

The first rejected alternative, the only other possibility recognised by the authors, proposes that this expression-only system be categorised in terms of the material order phenomena that the gestures visually resemble.

In Cléirigh's model, the gestures of body language simply realise the meanings of body language, whether used paralinguistically or on their own.

Misrepresenting The Microfunctions As Criterial Of Protolinguistic Body Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 61):

Nor is it possible to argue that certain forms of adult paralanguage are organised in terms of microfunctions simply because it is possible to interpret them this way. As explained earlier, there is no formal way to determine the microfunction of an infant expression – it is an interpretation from context. Therefore, given that any adult communication could be assigned to a microfunction on contextual grounds, since adult language has limitless uses, this does not in itself count as evidence for microfunctional organisation. It would therefore be more appropriate for the term ‘protolanguage’ to be used only if it can be shown that the defining characteristics of protolinguistic communication are apparent, that is, if the expression form is an irreducible multimodal complex and if the meaning is similarly an inseparable bundle of ideational and interpersonal meaning.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading indeed, because it misrepresents the micofunctions that are used to model protolanguage as criterial of the category. To be clear, protolinguistic body language is simply body language that does not require the prior evolution or development of language, and as such, can be found in all other species with a social semiotic system. The microfunctions are not criterial in determining the category 'protolinguistic', they are merely Halliday's means of modelling paralanguage.

So here again the authors are arguing against their own misunderstanding of Cléirigh's model, instead of against Cléirigh's model itself. In terms of logical fallacies, this is an example of the

Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognising or acknowledging the distinction.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. For example, protolinguistic interjections like yuck! and ouch! are not expressed by "an irreducible multimodal complex". Halliday (1994: 95):

Exclamations are the limiting case of an exchange; they are verbal gestures of the speaker addressed to no one in particular, although they may, of course, call for empathy on the part of the addressee. Some of them are in fact not language but protolanguage, such as Wow!, Yuck!, Aha! and Ouch!.

Moreover, Halliday's publications provide a wealth of examples of expressions that are not multimodal. For example, Halliday (2004 [1975]: 36):

In other species, the expression may be unimodal or multimodal. For example, in rainbow lorikeets, a 'prohibitive' regulatory function, which could be glossed as 'you just try it!) is expressed as rough growl with low rising tone (tone 3), whereas a 'threatening' regulatory function, which might be glossed as 'you're asking for it!', is expressed by the arching of the back, a lowering of the face and eye ridges, a fierce glare, and multiple wing-flaps while standing on 'tippy-toes' as if the bird was about to make a flying attack. Other examples can be found here.

[3] To be clear, this characterises human protolanguage in terms of the semiotic system it will evolve and develop into, metafunctional language, instead of in its own terms as microfunctional protolanguage. In evolutionary terms, this is analogous to characterising the features of therapod dinosaurs in terms of the features of birds.

Halliday (2004 [1975]: 52) provides a summary of the development from microfunction to metafunction:

Affect

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 34):

As outlined by Martin and White (2005) attitude may not be explicitly inscribed in language but invoked by ideational choices a speaker expects a reaction to. We introduced an example of this in (64) earlier; a headshot from this image is blown up in (64''), as the vlogger introduces the good news that her hair dye is back in stock at Target. Her smiling face makes explicit the affect that her language does not.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Meaning Of A Smile.

[1] This misrepresents the metafunctions as separate modules, instead of complementary perspectives on meaning.  Choices that invoke attitude are interpersonal choices.  Moreover, a speaker can "expect a reaction" to ideational meaning in the absence of attitude.

[2] Here again the authors deploy the logical fallacy of 'begging the question' (petitio principi), since they assume the point their argument needs to establish, namely that the speaker's smile realises an assessment: the goodness of the 'news that her hair dye is back in stock at Target' (the authors' interpretation, not the speaker's words).

To be clear, the speaker's smile coincides only with the word Target, on which the tonic falls, marking it as the focus of New information.  So the timing of the smile is an instance of linguistic body language (Martin's sonovergent body language), and functions textually.

This also means that, if an assessment is being realised by the smile, it is solely an assessment of Target.  However, no assessment is being made here, the smile simply realises the speaker's positive emotion, as will be argued below.

To be clear, a smile is a physiological process that manifests a state of consciousness: a token of a senser's sensing, to adapt Halliday & Matthiessen's (1999: 210) phrase.  On Cléirigh's model, such behaviours are the raw material from which protolanguage develops. For example, in rainbow lorikeets, semiotic expressions of anger function socio-semiotically as expressions of the regulatory microfunction ('I want you-&-me'), in Halliday's model of protolanguage.

On Cléirigh's model, the speaker's smile is thus interpreted as an instance of the personal microfunction of protolinguistic body language, realising a positive emotion.  By the same token, the speaker's eye gaze is interpreted as an instance of the interactional microfunction of protolinguistic body language, signifying engagement with the viewer.

		meaning	kinetic expression
action	regulatory	I want, refuse, threaten	ø eg raised fist, glower
	instrumental	give me, I invite you	ø eg extended hand
reflection	interactional	togetherness, bonding	ø eg mutual eye gaze
	personal	emotions	ø eg smiling face

(adapted from Matthiessen 2007: 5)

(Note that emoticons (emojis) are thus epilinguistic (pictorial) reconstruals of protolinguistic body language.)

So, contrary to the author's claims, the smile does not realise an attitudinal assessment (AFFECT), and constitutes an instance of protolinguistic body language, not epilinguistic body language ('semovergent paralanguage').

[3] As argued above, this is not true.  Moreover, if it were true, it would be an instance of 'semovergent paralanguage' "resonating" with what is not actually said.

Appreciation

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 34, 233):

Paralanguage deploys facial expression and bodily stance to share attitude. In (75) our vlogger nuances her appreciation (exciting) of a neighbourhood get-together she has dressed up for with raised eyebrows and a lopsided-mouth expression³¹ (which we might read as indicating that some followers might not find it all that exciting).

³¹ The ‘out-of-kilter’ mouth here can be interpreted as soft focus, converging with kind of.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Nuancing Appreciation By (Not) Looking Surprised.

[1] Rewording this in terms of SFL theory:

In (semovergent) paralanguage, the meanings of ATTITUDE can be realised by facial expression and bodily stance.

That is, it isn't paralanguage that deploys, and the speaker enacts her attitude.

[2] The authors, after having just declared that, in terms of ATTITUDE, 'paralanguage can only enact emotion' (i.e. AFFECT and not APPRECIATION or JUDGEMENT), here present an example that, by their own terms, "resonates" with APPRECIATION.  They use term 'nuance' here to disguise the invalid claim that body language 'surprise' resonates with 'exciting'.  Moreover, as the reader can see, the facial expression does not realise the emotion 'surprise'.  Here the authors are misrepresenting the data to fit their own model.

[3] On Cléirigh's original model, the eyebrow raising here is an instance of linguistic body language (sonovergent paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language (semovergent body language).  This would be obvious if the authors had included the tone choice of the accompanying tone group, which they wrongly analyse for tonicity.  The speaker places the tonic on that's, marking it as the focus of New information, and uses tone 3 (level pitch):

//3 ^ so / that's / kind of ex/citing //

The tone group, which immediately follows an edit, begins at a high pitch and stays at that level throughout.  The eyebrows do the same, and so function the same interpersonally as the tone choice; see [4].

[4] To be clear, the "lopsided mouth" is, in this instance, merely a feature of the speaker's anatomy.

The meaning that the authors attribute to the speaker's anatomy is actually the meaning realised by her eyebrow position and tone choice.  As Halliday (1994: 305) points out, tone 3 with declarative mood can realise the KEY feature 'unimportant'.  So here the speaker's interpersonal paralanguage does not "resonate" with the positive APPRECIATION realised in wording; in fact, it contradicts it — what psychologists call 'involuntary self-disclosure'.

[5] Leaving aside the fact that the authors have attributed the meaning realised by the speaker's eyebrow position to a permanent feature of the speaker's anatomy, the authors here provide no basis whatsoever for interpreting an 'out of kilter' mouth as realising the GRADUATION feature 'soft focus'.  It is merely a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument or evidence of any kind.  Readers familiar with the field of multimodality will not be surprised by this, of course.

Motion Used To Support Direction

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 33):

Motion can also be used to support direction in space or time. In Section 1.5.1 we illustrated two examples of hands sweeping right to left towards the past, concurring with the tone groups //2 bought / previously when I // (57) and // loved the / first time // (58). These contrast with left-to-right movement towards the future, concurrent with // hopefully next time I will //. This motion to the right is reinforced by a pointing gesture, which we discuss in Section 1.5.2.3 (as textual semovergence).

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Gestural Motion "Supporting" Direction In Space Or Time.

[1] To be clear, here the authors propose a relation ('support') between the expression of one semiotic system, body language (direction of gesture movement), and the content of language ('direction in space or time').  That is, the authors are not concerned here with the content of body language itself.

[2] To be clear, here the authors interpret the direction of these two gestural motions as ideational in function, contradicting their previous (pp8-9) interpretation of it as textual in function:

In examples (2) and (3) the vlogger makes a sweeping right-to-left gesture referencing past time;

This same confusion is also found in the discourse semantic system of IDENTIFICATION (Martin 1992), where textual reference is confused with  reference in the sense of ideational denotation; evidence here.

[3] Here the authors deploy the logical fallacy known as begging the question (petitio principii), since they assume the very point that they are trying to make: that a gestural movement to the right signifies a "movement" to the future.

[4] To be clear, the claim here is that the direction of the body language gesture to the right agrees (is 'concurrent') with the meaning realised by the wording next time, which the authors interpret as 'movement toward the future'.

If next time is interpreted as a circumstantial Adjunct, then, as a circumstance of Location, it signifies 'rest' not 'motion'.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 317):

However, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3) list next time as an example of a conjunctive Adjunct (enhancement: spatiotemporal: complex).  On this reading, the meaning of next time is textual in metafunction, rather than ideational.

In Martin (1992), however, cohesive conjunction in the grammar is misunderstood as a logical system of discourse semantics (now termed CONNEXION).  That is, in Martin's terms, this gesture "concurs" with a logical relation between message parts in a message (here relabelled as figure and sequence, after Halliday & Matthiessen 1999).  However, the authors failed to recognise it as an instance of Martin's CONNEXION.

[5] To be clear, on the authors' model, a handshape realises an entity.  Since no entity is identified here, and the function is said to be textual rather than ideational, the conclusion must be that a pointed hand is not a handshape.

Gesture Sequence

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 31-2):

As with imagic sequences in film, animations, graphic novels, comics, cartoons and picture books, the gesture sequence does not make explicit the conjunctive relations between events (and so cannot support discourse semantic connexion). These relations have to be abduced (Bateman, 2007) from the sequence and concurring language. In the case of the sequence in (66)–(69), conjunctive relations of time and cause are not made explicit in language either; only the additive linker and is used. A defeasible reading of the sequence is offered in (66'')–(69'').

(66'') // and so the dermatologist um took like this needle

(temporal sequential)

(67'') // and under each like bump

(temporal overlapping)

(68'') // and injected this like steroid

(causal)

(69'') // and like it all bubbled up //

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Abducing Defeasible Conjunctive Relations.

[1] To be clear, here the authors are concerned with the expansion relations between the meaning realised by gestures, not with identifying any gestures that might realise such expansion relations.

[2] The problem with abductive reasoning is that it is formally equivalent to a logical fallacy:

Abductive reasoning allows inferring a as an explanation of b. As a result of this inference, abduction allows the precondition a to be abduced from the consequence b. Deductive reasoning and abductive reasoning thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such, abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent (or Post hoc ergo propter hoc) because of multiple possible explanations for b.

[3] To be clear, here the authors are abducing the expansion relations between figures in a sequence of language and claiming that such relations also apply to the meanings realised in body language, despite the fact that there are no gestural realisations of any of these relations, let alone gestural distinctions between temporal and causal relations.

The reason why it is possible to interpret implicit expansion relations in language is that there are linguistic agnates that can be used to demonstrate that the same meaning is being construed.  In the case of and, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 487) have already done the work for us:

However, in the case of body language, the authors have provided no gestural agnates that can be used to demonstrate that the same meaning is being construed by the complete absence of such gestures.

[4] To be clear, 'defeasible' means open in principle to revision, valid objection, forfeiture, or annulment, and this is certainly the case here, as demonstrated below.  Moreover:

In logic, defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is rationally compelling, though not deductively valid. … Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning, where the reasoning does not produce a full, complete, or final demonstration of a claim, i.e., where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged. In other words, defeasible reasoning produces a contingent statement or claim.

[5] Here the authors confuse phonology (tone groups) with semantics (sequences of figures).  This is a sequence of three figures:

1. and so the dermatologist um took like this needle
2. and under each like bump (and) injected this like steroid
3. and like it all bubbled up

The expansion relation between 1 and 2 and between 2 and 3 is temporal: different: later ('and then').  Abducing the second relation as causal: reason ('and so') is feasible, though more defeasible.

Note that the authors' 'temporal overlapping' analysis mistakenly relates the circumstance of the figure to the Nucleus of the same figure.

Paralanguage Converging With Sound: Sonovergent Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 23, 233):

Sonovergent paralanguage converges with the prosodic phonology of spoken language (Halliday, 1967, 1970a; Halliday and Greaves, 2008; Smith and Greaves, 2015). From an interpersonal perspective, it resonates with tone and involves a body part (e.g. eyebrows or arms) moving up and down in tune with pitch movement in a tone group (TONE and marked salience). From a textual perspective, it involves a body part²³ (e.g. hands, head) moving in sync with the periodicity of speech – which might involve beats aligned with a salient syllable of a foot (which might also be the tonic syllable of a tone group) or a gesture coextensive with a tone group (i.e. in sync with TONALITY, TONICITY or RHYTHM systems). An outline of this sonovergent paralanguage is presented in Table 1.5. …

²³ For wavelengths longer than a tone group, whole body motion is involved.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "sonovergent paralanguage" realises the same lexicogrammatical distinctions as prosodic phonology, which is why Cléirigh termed it linguistic body language, and why it is invalid to model it as paralanguage.

[2] To be clear, this is Cléirigh's description of linguistic body language, misrepresented as the work of the authors — i. e. plagiarism — as demonstrated from the following extract from Cléirigh's notes:

Linguistic Body Language (Body Language)

This is body language that only occurs during speech.  Its kinology involves visible body movements that are in sync with the rhythm or in tune with the (defining) pitch movement of spoken language.  In doing so, the function of such movements is precisely that of the prosodic phonology: rhythm and intonation.

As linguistic, ‘prosodic’ body language is thus:

v  tri-stratal: its kinology realises the lexicogrammar of (adult) language, and

v  metafunctional (textual and interpersonal) in terms of Halliday’s modes of meaning.

 

	lexicogrammar	prosodic expression
		phonology	kinetic
	lexical salience°	rhythm	gesture (hand, head) in sync with the speech rhythm
textual	focus of new information	tonicity	gesture (hand, head) in sync with the tonic placement
	information distribution	tonality	gesture (hand, head) co-extensive with tone group
interpersonal	key	tone	gesture (eyebrow*, hand) in tune with the tone choice

* also: rolling of the eyes for tone 5.

°Halliday (1985: 60):

The function of rhythm in discourse is to highlight content words (lexical items). 

[3] To be clear, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence: the logical fallacy known as ipse dixit. 

∞

See also the comments on the same text in Martin & Zappavigna (2019) at Misrepresenting Cléirigh's Work As The Authors' Work.

Periodicity

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 17):

PERIODICITY comprises resources for composing text as waves of information. The basic idea here is that there is a hierarchy of periodicity, extending from the small wavelengths of tone group and clause up through an indefinite number of indefinitely long phases of discourse. In the example that follows we have a topic sentence introducing what has been happening to the vlogger in parking lots and a retrospective comment on the frequency of this annoying behaviour. A wide range of resources, including text reference (in bold) and generalised ideation (in italics), along with internal conjunction and ideational grammatical metaphor in more abstract registers, cooperate with one another to scaffold information flow along these lines.

(55)

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 – you don’t necessarily want to leave immediately. Like you might wanna – 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 through the parking lot and then they just wait for you to leave. I cannot stand that.

And that has happened so many times.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, PERIODICITY is a discourse semantic system incongruously named after a type of structure instead of a type of meaning. More importantly, it is writing pedagogy misrepresented as linguistic theory, in which

• introductory paragraph is rebranded as macro-Theme,
• topic sentence is rebranded as hyper-Theme (a misunderstanding of Daneš 1974),
• paragraph summary is rebranded as hyper-New, and
• text summary is rebranded as macro-New.

Moreover, its structures are not relations, but single functions. That is:

• macro-Theme does not relate to a macro-Rheme
• hyper-Theme does not relate to a hyper-Rheme
• hyper-New does not relate to a hyper-Given
• macro-New does not relate to a macro-Given.

[2] To be clear, waves in phonology, lexicogrammar and semantics are of different levels of symbolic abstraction. Here that difference is ignored, as if all waves can be compared at the same level.

[3] To be clear, the claim that text reference, "generalised ideation", internal conjunction and ideational grammatical metaphor "scaffold" this type information flow is a bare assertion without supporting evidence: the logical fallacy known as ipse dixit.