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.

Taking Steps To Realise Marked New

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 187, 189-90):

To what extent does the regularity in this sequence synchronise with PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY? The lecturer’s movement is schematised in Figure 6.5 (adopting the perspective of the students). 

The vertical lines to left and right denote the peripheries of the space, and the black rectangle denotes a centrally located desk towards the back of the space. The arrows show direction of movement; and the orientation of the foot indicates whether the lecturer is stepping forward or backwards in a given direction (it is always forward in (19'')). The figures and movement in Figure 6.5 are correlated as follows:

The movement in Figure 6.5 involves a regular three-step rhythm synchronous with each figure. The first step always falls on the intermodally prominent entity that construes the nutrient (i.e. glucose, vitamins, amino acids or water).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in comparing textual paralanguages, it is the textual metafunction that is relevant, not the ideational. So, the relevant textual structure for description that is building on the rhythm and tonicity of gestures, is the Given-New structure of information unit realised by tone groups. 

[2] To be clear, the first step of each movement coincides with the tonic that realises the Focus of marked New information.

So here the authors are positing a systematic relation between stepping and language. For Halliday and Cléirigh, that categorises the function of this movement as linguistic, or "sonovergent" in the authors' terms.

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' Analysis Of Hand Shape

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 183-4):

In (17'') we present a sequence of images and descriptions of the lecturer’s paralanguage. …

In terms of size, the beat synchronous with the first tonic on (Foucault) and the last (form of power) extends the furthest, with the stroke of the latter extending maximally downwards from shoulder height. The final beat is also extended in duration as it is held beyond the completion of the tone group.

Variation in the shape of the beating hand is noted in image 4 and magnified in (17''') to reveal the co-instantiation of a depicted paralinguistic entity. In this instance the gestural beat synchronises with self; the pronoun refers anaphorically to the semiotic entity form of knowledge. The paralinguistic beat thus assigns textual prominence to an ideational meaning.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this display does not present the text as spoken:

[2] To be clear, this distinction in the amplitude of the beat serves the same function as the distinction between tonic salient syllables and non-tonic salient syllables.

[3] To be clear, the location of the holding of the gesture suggests the function of the holding is demarcative.

[4] Clearly, the hand shape is not recognisable as meaning '(it)self' or 'form of knowledge', so it cannot be said to be realising this ideational meaning. 

[5] To be clear, it is the beat of linguistic gesture, not the hand shape, that gives rhythmic salience, highlighting what could have been chosen as realising the focus of New information, but was not. However, the fact that an emphatic pronoun was not given tonic prominence in this analysis, gives reason to doubt the accuracy of the analysis.

Misrepresenting Halliday On Theme

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 181-2):

As outlined by Halliday (1967, 1970a), English grammar and phonology structure textual meaning as waves of information. One peak of prominence is realised grammatically through Theme at the beginning of an English clause. It functions as the point of departure for the message by encoding an angle on the field. A complementary peak of prominence, termed New, is realised phonologically in the unmarked case through the major pitch movement on the final salient syllable of a tone group – its Tonic segment (Halliday, 1970a; Martin and Rose, [2003] 2007: 189–92). A secondary peak of informational prominence is realised through a salient syllable, which in SFL notation begins each foot. As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.6, a salient syllable can be made super-salient where there is a significant jump in pitch, usually upwards, which does not involve a choice of tone. Super-salience is indicated via a vertical arrow, ‘↑’, before the syllable.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the notion of the textual meaning of a clause as a wave of prominence is first set out in Halliday (1985: 169).

[2] To be clear, the Theme functions as the point of departure for the clause as message. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 89):

The Theme is the element that serves as the point of departure of the message; it is that which locates and orients the clause within its context. The speaker chooses the Theme as his or her point of departure to guide the addressee in developing an interpretation of the message; by making part of the message prominent as Theme, the speaker enables the addressee to process the message.

Field, on the other hand, is the ideational dimension of context — two strata above lexicogrammar — which Martin (1992) misunderstands as register.

[3] To be clear, the New is peak of prominence of the information unit, which may or may not be co-extensive with the clause.

[4] This is misleading, because it credits Martin and Rose with theorising that is entirely Halliday's.

[5] To be clear, a salient syllable is a peak of phonological (rhythmic), not informational prominence. Here the authors confuse expression with content. Each salient syllable that is non-tonic realises what was not selected as the Focus of New information.

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.

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.

Misunderstanding Textual Language As Interpersonal Paralanguage

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

Embodied paralanguage can adjust the FORCE of verbally expressed meanings through options of [intensify] and [quantify]. The feature [intensify] can be realised in a number of ways: through increased muscle tension in a hand-beat; in a very rapid frequency of such beats (syncing with syllable-timed rhythm in the prosodic phonology of English – see Chapter 6); or in the holding of the completed position of a beat for an extended time.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As Halliday (1967) pointed out, the prosodic phonology of English is foot-timed, not syllable-timed (e.g. Italian).

[2] To be clear, the beating of the hands with the rhythm of speech is the use of the hands to realise the same content as those realised by the rhythm of speech. That is, the function of the hand-beats is linguistic, to realise textual salience, which is why such gestures are classified as linguistic in Cléirigh's model. So here the authors have misunderstood the textual salience as interpersonal force. Put in their own terms, the authors have misunderstood textual sonovergent paralanguage as interpersonal semovergent paralanguage.

Problems With The Notion Of "Coupling" An Evaluative Meaning With An Ideational Trigger

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 140):

From a systemic functional perspective the co-instantiation of an evaluative meaning with an ideational one constitutes a kind of ‘coupling’, one that can be applied to expressions of AFFECT with accompanying ideational triggers. 

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Halliday (2008: 179) characterises the APPRAISAL system of ATTITUDE as follows:

This is a grammatical system that is realised by a selection of lexical items.

That is, AFFECT is realised by lexical item, and the "coupling" is with some wording of its co-text, both of which function both interpersonally and ideationally, at least.

[2] To be clear, 'ideational trigger' is the textual/interpersonal/ideational wording that is "coupled" with the lexical item that expresses the attitude. Since a 'trigger' is a cause of a process, the term only applies in the case of impinging mental clauses (Adele pleases her) where the Phenomenon is the Agent. In emanating mental clauses (She likes Adele), the Phenomenon is not the Agent ('trigger') but the Range that 'delimits the boundaries of the sensing' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 347).

Inconsistency In The Authors' Analysis

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 128):

Just as an expression of FACIAL AFFECT supports the identification of the trigger, so available ideational information supports the interpretation of FACIAL AFFECT. A sequence of triggers is interpreted as prompting the sequence of emotions in (8). 

We interpret Coraline’s expression of [fear] in image 1 of example (8) as triggered by the potential consequences of accumulated information sourced visually in the falling rock and auditorily in the cry of pain and the loud, angry ‘meow’.  

We interpret the expression of [surprise] in image 2 as triggered visually by Coraline’s first sight of the cat.  

The trigger for [anger] in image 3 is interpreted not as a response to seeing the cat but to an internal realisation that it was the cat who had instigated her fear.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the authors' interpretations here are inconsistent with their own previous account:

A pained cry is heard. Extremely alarmed by this, she runs as fast as possible, sensing something is pursuing her. Startled by a loud ‘meow’ from behind, she turns to look. Seeing that it is only a cat, her facial expression of [fear] swiftly changes to [surprise], but then to [anger], as in the three images in (8).

That is:

• hearing a cry of pain triggered her fear;
• hearing a loud meow triggered her surprise; and
• seeing a cat, rather than a threat, triggered her anger.

Misapplying A Confusion Of Ideational And Interpersonal Meaning To A Representation Of Protolanguage [2]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 127-8):

A further example in (8) shows how information acquired from past events can trigger a response in FACIAL AFFECT. The instance involves Coraline’s first encounter with the Cat in the orientation stage of the film’s narrative. The episode begins with Coraline exploring the neighbourhood along a steep hillside path. A rock falls onto her path from on high. She calls out but gets no response, then throws the rock in the direction from which it fell. A pained cry is heard. Extremely alarmed by this, she runs as fast as possible, sensing something is pursuing her. Startled by a loud ‘meow’ from behind, she turns to look. Seeing that it is only a cat, her facial expression of [fear] swiftly changes to [surprise], but then to [anger], as in the three images in (8).

Blogger Comments:

[1] That is:

• a Phenomenon of auditory perception (pained cry) is the Agent (trigger) of the mental Process of emotion (alarm);
• a Phenomenon of auditory perception (a loud meow) is the Agent (trigger) of the mental Process of emotion (surprise); and
• a Phenomenon of visual perception (a cat) is the Agent (trigger) of the mental Process of emotion (anger).

Again this confuses ideational with interpersonal meaning, and misapplies the confusion to an epilinguistic representation of pre-metafunctional protolanguage on a clay puppet.

[2] To be clear, here the expression of emotion does not accompany speech, so it is not functioning as paralanguage, and is not semovergent.

Misapplying A Confusion Of Ideational And Interpersonal Meaning To A Representation Of Protolanguage [1]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 127):

In (7), the trigger for facial expressions of emotion is apparently sourced internally. 

In the resolution stage of the narrative storyline in the film, Coraline meets the Cat, a good friend whom she has not seen since she threw him at the Other Mother in attempting her escape from the Other World.

In image 1 in (7) Coraline expresses both mild [surprise] and [spirit:up]. There is no immediately convergent speech, and the trigger is not interpretable at this point by the viewer. 

However, in image 2 more visual information is made available. The Cat is now revealed as standing outside Coraline’s bedroom window, and his presence retrospectively explains the trigger for her facial [surprise] and [spirit:up] in image 1. 

In image 2, convergent with her spoken language, Coraline’s expression of FACIAL AFFECT changes from [spirit:up] to [spirit:down]. Again there is no apparent trigger in the visually available information. The resonant spoken language I’m really sorry I threw you out at the Other Mother suggests that the trigger at this point is sourced internally through her reflection on past events. The broader co-text of the story supports this interpretation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] That is, a cognitive Phenomenon is the Agent (trigger) of the mental Process of emotion. This confuses ideational with interpersonal meaning, and misapplies the confusion to an epilinguistic representation of pre-metafunctional protolanguage on a clay puppet.

[2] To be clear, in SFL terms, this is an expression of the personal microfunction of protolanguage, epilinguistically represented on a clay puppet.

[3] To be clear, if the expression of emotion does not accompany speech, then it is not functioning as paralanguage, and is not semovergent.

[4] That is, a Phenomenon of visual perception is the Agent (trigger) of the mental Process of emotion. This again confuses ideational with interpersonal meaning, and misapplies the confusion to an epilinguistic representation of pre-metafunctional protolanguage on a clay puppet.

The Notion Of Ideational Triggers For Affect Reconsidered

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 126-7):

AFFECT in verbal and visual texts is always triggered by ideational phenomena. These can be entities or occurrences of any kind. Ideational triggers for expressions of FACIAL AFFECT in Coraline may be sourced via a diversity of perceptual channels that are interpreted as available to the character in particular instances. A taxonomy of types of perceptual channel is presented in Figure 5.5.

The triggering information may be sourced externally through an auditory perceptual channel (as sound or silence) or a visual, olfactory, gustatory or tactile one (Feng and O’Halloran, 2013). Alternatively, it can be sourced internally through reflection, memory or imagination. In interpreting the trigger for a particular facial expression of emotion in multimodal discourse such as that in Coraline more than one perceptual channel is likely to play a part.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, with the notion of ideational triggers for emotion, the authors have left the interpersonal domain of appraisal by emotional attitude and entered the ideational domain of cause and effect (reason and result). The ideational trigger, here, is the Phenomenon/Agent of an impinging mental Process of emotion (Music pleases me). This notion, however, ignores the distinction with the Phenomenon/Range of an emanating mental Process of emotion (I like music).

[2] To be clear, the taxonomy of types of perceptual channel corresponds to a taxonomy of types perceptual Phenomenon/Agent ('triggering information') of an impinging mental Process of emotion.

[3] To be clear, internal triggering information corresponds to a cognitive Phenomenon/Agent of an impinging mental Process of emotion.

Problems With The System Of Facial Affect

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 120, 121):

The systemic functional semiotic system of FACIAL AFFECT presented in Figure 5.3 takes into account these important contributions in a number of areas, including descriptive terminology. For example, the naming of features in the model of FACIAL AFFECT avoids the use of Ekman’s terms of ‘happiness’ and ‘sadness’ as [happiness] is already a feature in linguistic ATTITUDE. Instead emotion terminology is sourced to Darwin’s (1872) opposition in facial movements of ‘high spirit’ and ‘low spirit’. Darwin’s influence is seen in Figure 5.3 in the naming of the feature [spirit] and its opposing features as [up] and [down].

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the system in Figure 5.3 confirms the fact that here the authors model paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system. As previously noted, although this is consistent with the notion of a semiotic system, it is inconsistent with the preceding chapters in which paralanguage is misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. Where in previous chapters it was just paralinguistic expression that was semovergent with language, in this chapter it is both paralinguistic content and expression that is semovergent with language.

[2] To be clear, the title of Darwin (1872), The expression of the emotions in man and animals, acknowledges that the expression of emotion does not require the evolution and development of language. As such, the facial expression of emotion is protolanguage, not language.

Where AFFECT is a system of the interpersonal metafunction in the tri-stratal semiotic of language, protolanguage is a bi-stratal system that is pre-metafunctional. On Halliday's model, the expression of emotion serves the personal microfunction. 

In short, to model the personal microfunction of protolanguage as the interpersonal metafunction of language, as FACIAL AFFECT, is theoretically invalid.

Problems With A Phonological Analysis

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 117):

The example in (1) shows paralinguistic expressions sonovergent with each major tone choice (other than the level-rise tone 3 which offers minimal phonological scope for convergent body-part movement). A phonological transcription records the tone (as, e.g. //1), and the intonation contour describes and interprets it (as, e.g. falling – ‘certain’). The paralanguage which is sonovergent with each intonation contour – which visualises it – is then described. The resonance of the visual and phonological contours adds further salience to the tonic and hence the given tone choice.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, tone 3 is a level or low rise in pitch, so it can be realised facially by a maintained level or low rise in the eyebrows.

[2] To be clear, adding salience to the tonic is adding salience to what the tonic realises: the focus of New information, not to the tone choice that realises the system of KEY.

[3] To be clear, based on the system of KEY, the most likely tone for // I didn't / break it // is tone 2 ('protest'), not tone 4 ('reservation'), and this analysis is supported by the raised eyebrows on the clay puppet.

The Representation Of Emotion On Clay Puppets As Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 115):

This chapter focuses on interpersonal meaning in paralanguage – on the ways in which the paralanguage of facial expression, voice quality, body gestures and positioning express feelings and enact social relations in cooperation with spoken language. The data are drawn from an award-winning stop-motion puppet animation film Coraline, directed by Henry Selick (2009) and based on a novella of the same name written by Neil Gaiman (2002).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in modelling the facial expression of emotion in terms of a metafunction, the interpersonal, the authors present this semiotic system as one that requires the evolution and development of language. Clearly, the meaningful expression of emotion is not restricted to the one species in whom language has evolved, Homo sapiens, but is common to all social semiotic species. On this basis, the facial expression of emotion is a protolinguistic semiotic system, and in Halliday's model, is understood in terms of the personal microfunction.

[2] To be clear, the data for this chapter on paralanguage are not actually paralanguage, but representations of paralanguage constructed on clay puppets by animators, using  the emotion-face coding system of Ekman. The representation of paralanguage on clay puppets does require the prior development of language in the animators, and so is an epilinguistic semiotic system, in the terminology of Cléirigh's model.

Misrepresenting Protolinguistic Body Language As Either Somatic Or Interpersonal

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 62-3):

What is common to most of the meanings assigned by Zappavigna and Martin (2018) to ‘protolinguistic’ microfunctions is that, if not simply somatic, they are interpersonal in nature – but not accommodated by a linguistic model that includes only SPEECH FUNCTION, MOOD and MODALITY in that metafunction.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, the authors (Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna) are not here arguing with themselves (Zappavigna and Martin); they are arguing to exclude protolinguistic body language from Cléirigh's model which they have claimed as their own. The plagiarism in this work is effected through myriad small steps.

[2] As previously explained, in Cléirigh's model, protolinguistic body language, by definition, excludes non-semiotic ("somatic") behaviour, and the authors' misunderstanding in this regard derives from taking the view 'from below' (body movement) instead of the view 'from above' (meaning). And, as also previously explained, in terms of orders of complexity, the authors' model of somasis confuses the biological order with the social order, and includes what Halliday (2004: 18) models as protolanguage.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As explained in the previous post, this false claim derives from the authors misrepresenting epilinguistic pictorial systems, which do include interpersonal meaning, as protolinguistic body language, which does not.

[4] To be clear, a model of an evolutionarily prior system, protolinguistic body language, is not required to "accommodate" a model of an evolutionarily later system, a linguistic model, any more than a description of therapod dinosaurs must accommodate a description of the birds that evolved from them.

Misrepesenting Epilinguistic Pictures As Evidence Against Protolinguistic Body Language

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 62):

If we turn now to other SFL theorists, particularly those who have considered the visual depiction of human communicative interaction, we can see some common threads. There is a general agreement about the meanings of the way the body is oriented in relation to an addressee. 

For example, Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2006) system of INVOLVEMENT within their ‘visual grammar’ explains the meaning as relative detachment or involvement of the viewer with the content of the image. The meaning is realised by horizontal angle, with an oblique angle signifying greater detachment than a front-on angle. 

Painter et al. (2013) extend this to analysis of the depicted interacting characters in picture books to propose a system of ORIENTATION with different orientations between characters (face to face, side by side, back to back) comparably realising different degrees of engagement, solidarity or detachment. 

Martinec (2001) similarly has a comparable system of ANGLE (operating alongside one of SOCIAL DISTANCE) again with similar realisations.  

In all of this work the meaning systems are placed within the interpersonal metafunction and are thus seen as available alongside textual and/or ideational paralanguage systems and all three metafunctions of language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, since these are not independent theorists. Painter et al, at least, theorise on the basis of Kress and van Leeuwen's work, at least.

[2] Importantly, visual depiction is an epilinguistic semiotic system — "semovergent" in the authors' terms — since it requires the prior evolution and development of language. So here the authors are using an epilinguistic system as evidence that a protolinguistic system is epilinguistic.

[3] To be clear, Kress and van Leeuwen are concerned with a human's interpretation of an image, and Painter et al are concerned with relations within an image. Both are irrelevant to the issue at hand, since neither is concerned with the body language of an organism of a social semiotic species.

[4] To be clear, because visual depiction is an epilinguistic semiotic system, its meaning is metafunctionally organised. These colleagues have simply applied the interpersonal metafunction to what is depicted in such epilinguistic systems.

[5] To be clear, this is simply a description of paralanguage, whether protolinguistic or epilinguistic. As such, it does not serve the authors' argument against protolinguistic body language.

Misrepresenting Protolinguistic Paralanguage As Evidence Against The Category [2]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 62):

Another group of behaviours from Zappavigna and Martin’s (2018) ‘body protolanguage’ category involves relative uprightness of body posture, frontal or oblique facial and body orientation and the leaning forward or backwards of the torso in relation to the addressee. These expressive movements of the body are similarly independent from any ideational meanings with which they may combine and, similarly to facial movements, may also combine with other interpersonal strands of meaning, whether linguistic (e.g. a variety of spoken mood forms) or paralinguistic (e.g. smiling or widening the eyes). There is thus neither fusion of ideational/interpersonal meaning in relation to ‘content’ nor multimodal fusion in the form of expression. The characteristics of protolanguage as a developmental semiotic are not therefore in evidence.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the use of the terms 'behaviours' and 'expressive/facial movements' here again betray the authors' misunderstanding of body language as an expression-only semiotic system.

[2] Again, the authors (Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna) are not here arguing with themselves (Zappavigna and Martin); they are arguing to exclude protolinguistic body language from Cléirigh's model which they have claimed as their own. The plagiarism in this work is effected through myriad small steps.

[3] To be clear, these postures and orientations also occur in other social semiotic species, such as rainbow lorikeets. When they are meaningful, they are protolinguistic on the basis that they do not require the evolutionary or developmental emergence of language.

[4] To be clear, on Cléirigh's model, these are simply examples of protolinguistic body language accompanying the ideational or interpersonal meanings of language; that is, of protolinguistic body language being used paralinguistically. 

The authors' confusion here derives from their misunderstanding that such body language expressions realise the metafunctional meanings of the linguistic instance rather than the microfunctional meanings of the protolinguistic instance. This misunderstanding, in turn, derives from the authors' notion of convergence, in which paralanguage expression is said to converge with language content. This misunderstanding, in turn, derives from the authors' misunderstanding of body language as an expression-only semiotic system — a misunderstanding that invalidates their model of paralanguage.

[5] To be clear, on the one hand, the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions are irrelevant to a characterisation of protolanguage, since they do not evolve or develop until the emergence of language. The microfunctions are predecessors of the metafunctions, not a fusion of them. On the other hand, as Halliday's previously cited data (Halliday 2004 [1975]: 36) demonstrate, multimodality is not a necessary condition of protolanguage.

[6] To be clear, the characteristics of protolanguage as a developmental semiotic are merely characteristics of protolanguage in relation to the ontogenesis of language. Protolinguistic body language is concerned with protolanguage in its own right, not as a means to a linguistic end. 

De-centring Postures To Soften Focus

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 36-7):

Hao and Hood (2019) draw attention to the use of what they call de-centring postures to soften focus, using the example of a shoulder shrug converging with fairly non-contractile in a biology lecture. The paralinguistic generalisation here would appear to be loss of equilibrium, for example, asymmetrical facial expression, out-of-kilter posture or a rotating prone hand (interpretable as between prone and supine). Clear examples in our data are the faces the vlogger pulls as she struggles to name her skin condition in the second tone group, the second of which is accompanied by two shakes of her head.

(83) //4 anyway, it was
(84) //3 some / granu- / loma:: / ^ [out-breath] / something
(85) //1_ I don’t know – it’s / called – it’s / some sort of / skin thing. //

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): De-Centring Postures To Soften Focus (Hao and Hood).

[1] To be clear, FOCUS is a system of GRADUATION in the system of APPRAISAL.  However, fairly non-contractile is not an appraisal (of muscles), since no assessment is made of them in terms of AFFECT, APPRECIATION or JUDGEMENT.  Since there is no appraisal, there is no graduation of appraisal, and since there is no graduation of appraisal, there is no focusing of appraisal, and since there is no focusing of appraisal, there is no softening of the focus of appraisal.

Here Hao and Hood have made the same fundamental error as Martin, confusing intensification, in general, with intensification in the APPRAISAL system.  This is hardly surprising, given that Hao is Martin's former student and Hood is Martin's current de facto.

Further, the characterisation of a shoulder shrug as 'de-centring' misrepresents the bodily movement in order to align it with the meaning 'soften focus'; in other words, the data is being made to fit the theory, instead of the reverse.

Moreover, the characterisation of a shoulder shrug as meaning 'soften focus' is at odds with its interpretation by the general community.  For example, the (epilinguistic) pictorial representation of a shoulder shrug has been decoded as follows:

The person shrugging emoji can designate ignorance, indifference, self-acceptance, passive-aggression, annoyance, giving up, or not knowing what to make of something. It could also be a visual form of the one-word response of indifference, “whatever.”

[2] To be clear, here the authors have generalised 'loss of equilibrium realises softening of focus' from a gesture (shrug) which doesn't constitute a loss of equilibrium and which doesn't realise a softening of the focus of an appraisal.

[3] To be clear, here the authors propose, without supporting argument, that a rotating hand, balanced between prone and supine in orientation, constitutes a loss of equilibrium.

[4] To be clear, naming a skin condition does not constitute an appraisal, and so there is no graduation of appraisal in this instance to be softened.

In Cléirigh's original model of epilinguistic body language, any postures and gestures that signify uncertainty — the speaker's next words were "I don't know what it's called — are realisations of MODALITY: MODALISATION: probability.  

Moreover, in this example, the speaker's face instantiates linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), with her eyebrows rising with the pitch (tone 2) on the tonic something, signifying the general meaning of tone 2: 'polarity unknown'.