Problems With The System Of Voice Affect

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 129, 131):

It is the particular ‘mixture’ of options [from the system of VOICE QUALITY] which realise one feature or another in the system of VOICE AFFECT (see Figure 5.7).

Blogger Comments:

The system in Figure 5.7 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.

Further, in Figure 5.7, the authors again misrepresent 'threat' as an emotion, with its result (fear, anxiety) and reason (anger) as its subtypes. Moreover, within the emotion of threat, it groups one result (anxiety) with a reason (anger) instead of with a result (fear).

Misrepresenting 'Threat' As An Emotion

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 120-1, 239n):

An additional opposition proposed by Darwin (1872) is between facial movements interpreted as ‘fear’ and ‘anger’. For Darwin, ‘fear’ is a feeling caused by the anticipation that one could be harmed (which we interpret as a response to what might happen, i.e. an irrealis trigger) and ‘anger’ is a feeling that might result in one harming others (which we interpret as a response to something real happening, i.e. a realis trigger). In the network of FACIAL AFFECT in Figure 5.3 [fear] and [anger] are opposing features of [threat]. Each feature is realised through a different set of facial expressions shown in italics. In the intersemiosis of facial expression and the unfolding storyline in language and action, the facial feature [fear] is interpretable as negative and irrealis, that is, it is a negative emotional response to what might happen. In contrast the feature [anger] is interpretable as negative and realis, an emotional response to what is happening or has happened.

Blogger Comments;

[1] As previously explained, the title Darwin (1872), The expression of the emotions in man and animals, demonstrates that the meanings here are protolinguistic, since other animals do not express the meanings of language. So, to model protolanguage as language, as FACIAL AFFECT, is theoretically invalid. On Halliday's model, the expression of emotion serves the personal microfunction of protolanguage. 

[2] To be clear, here the authors misrepresent the result of anger (harming others) as the reason for it (trigger).

[3] To be clear, in Figure 5.3, the authors misrepresent 'threat' as an emotion, with its result (fear) and cause (anger) as its subtypes.

[4] Again, the system in Figure 5.3 confirms the fact that here the authors model 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.

Misrepresenting Expression Stratum Systems As A Semantic Stratum Network

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 95-6):

In terms of how they are construed in paralanguage, entities vary across two main dimensions – SPECIFICITY and DEPICTION, as represented in the system network in Figure 4.1. SPECIFICITY deals with how much meaning is committed in terms of shape and size, while DEPICTION addresses how the entity is visually formed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here the authors misrepresent systems of expression stratum features as a semantic stratum network. This confusion follows directly from their previous misunderstanding of linguistic entities that are realised by paralinguistic expressions as paralinguistic entities, thereby classifying content in terms of how it is realised on the expression plane. This is analogous to classifying these discourse semantic units as phonological entities, since this is how they are realised on the expression plane of language. Cf.:

In terms of how they are "construed" in phonology, entities vary across two main dimensions – PLACE and MANNER (of articulation).

This error invalidates the authors' network — a network being a theory of the system (Halliday). 

[2] To be clear, the relation between meaning and expression/form is realisation.

Confusing Epilinguistic Pictures With Protolinguistic Body Language

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

As we have seen, much of what is assigned to body protolanguage involves the expression of emotions. Here we meet again the challenge of discriminating somasis and semiosis. Nonetheless, in the analysis of visual depiction, Painter et al. (2013) propose VISUAL AFFECT as an interpersonal meaning system complementing that of verbal AFFECT within the linguistic domain of APPRAISAL. 

The details of the system remain unspecified by them, but Martinec (2001) provides networks of meaning options for basic emotions with realisations specified in terms of facial movements. These systems are again treated by him as belonging within the interpersonal metafunction and thus able to be put into play alongside meanings originating from within the other metafunctions. For our own work in this domain, see Chapter 5.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As we have seen in previous posts, this false claim derives from the authors misconstruing Halliday's microfunctions of protolanguage as types of emotions. See

• The Problem With Reinterpreting Early Protolanguage As A System Of "Semioticised Affect"
• The Disadvantage Of Modelling Protolanguage From The Perspective Of Affect

In Cléirigh's model, following Halliday ((e.g. 2004 [1998]: 18), since emotions are personal states, they are restricted to the personal microfunction.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. If body movements and postures mean something other than themselves, emotions, they are semiotic, not merely "somatic" (the authors' confusion of biological and social orders of complexity).

As previously explained, this challenge to the authors only arises from their taking the view 'from below' (body movements and postures) instead of the SFL view 'from above' (the meanings expressed), and this error derives from misunderstanding paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system..

[3] As previously explained, visual depiction is an epilinguistic semiotic system — "semovergent" in the authors' terms — since it requires the prior evolution and development of language. This means that its meaning is metafunctionally organised. Painter et al simply applied the interpersonal metafunction to what is depicted in instances of an epilinguistic system. Importantly, the visual depiction of emotions is irrelevant to the issue of protolinguistic body language, since it is not concerned with the meanings that can be made by an organism of a social semiotic species in whom language has not developed. See the earlier post

• Misrepresenting Epilinguistic Pictures As Evidence Against Protolinguistic Body Language

For a more detailed consideration of the epilinguistic depiction of protolinguistic body language, see the review of Chapter 5 of this publication on interpersonal paralanguage.

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

∞

Most importantly, just as an image of a pipe is not a pipe, an image of body language is not body language.

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. 

Misrepresenting Protolinguistic Paralanguage As Evidence Against The Category [1]

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

To explore this, some examples of adult paralinguistic behaviour classified by Zappavigna and Martin (2018) as protolinguistic will be briefly discussed. One group comprises various facial expressions such as smiling, raising, lowering or widening the eyes, opening the mouth and the presence or absence of eye contact with the addressee, all features of ‘social communion’ that predate even protolanguage (see Figure 2.1).  

As has been discussed, during the transition phase there is evidence that facial affect can be separated from other strands of interpersonal expression (e.g. looking happy while saying oh dear) and in the adult semiotic system affective facial expressions can clearly combine freely with any ideational meaning. In these respects, such expression forms are unlike protolinguistic signs, and the issue to be resolved in a particular case is whether that instance is somatic or semiotic.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 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] To be clear, the use of the terms 'behaviour' and 'expression(s)' here betray the authors' misunderstanding of body language as an expression-only semiotic system.

[3] To be clear, this misunderstanding arises from again giving priority to the view 'from below', facial expression, instead of the view 'from above', meaning. The meanings of facial expressions cannot predate protolanguage, since protolanguage is the initial semiotic system. Before protolanguage, such facial expressions have a social function only: the selection of value in the other, not a semiotic function: the expression of symbolic value for the other.

[4] Here the authors provide evidence against their own argument. To be clear, a child looking happy while saying oh dear, and an adult combining facial expressions with language are both instances of the paralinguistic use of protolinguistic body language. They are paralinguistic because they are used alongside language, and they are protolinguistic because they are semiotic systems that do require the prior evolution and development of language.

[5] This is misleading. The difference here is only that, in these instances, the protolinguistic signs are being used paralinguistically, rather than pre-linguistically.

[6] To be clear, the issue to be resolved in a particular case is whether the instance is social (carries value) or protolinguistic (carries symbolic value). As previously explained, the authors' category of 'somatic' confuses two distinct orders of complexity: the biological and the social.

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:

Misrepresenting Protolinguistic Body Language As Non-Semiotic ("Somatic")

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 60-1):

The first point to be made is that some of the phenomena counted as protolinguistic in Zappavigna and Martin (2018) may in fact be somatic rather than semiotic. For example, forms of fidgeting, scratching a cheek or crossing feet may simply be a matter of relieving some bodily discomfort, rather than having symbolic import. It is necessary to have criteria for discriminating somatic and semiotic expression in such cases (see Chapter 1, Sections 1.4–1.5), but their ambiguity is not grounds for classing them as protolinguistic.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is the first of the authors' arguments against Cléirigh's category of protolinguistic body language. However, it is an argument against what the authors mistake to be included in the category rather than an argument against the grounds for the category itself.

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, Cléirigh's category of protolinguistic body language is restricted to semiosis, by definition. The criterion for discriminating the semiotic from the non-semiotic is simply that if a gesture or posture means something other than itself, then it is semiotic. If fidgeting, for example, does not mean something other than itself, then it is not semiotic, and so cannot be an expression of protolinguistic body language. If, however, the fidgeting of a young offender facing a tribunal — as in the data — means that he is nervous and 'itching to leave', then it is semiotic, and because such semiosis does not require the prior evolution and development of language, it is protolinguistic.

Importantly, the authors' mistaken notion of there being ambiguity in the interpretation of such cases derives from giving priority to the view 'from below', contrā the SFL method of giving priority to the view 'from above'. That is, the authors ask what the gestures mean, instead of asking how meanings are realised in gesture. This, in turn, derives from the authors misunderstanding body language as an expression-only semiotic system, as previously explained.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the authors' category of 'somatic' confuses two different orders of complexity: biological (behaviour) and social (communion). 

Misrepresenting The Grounds For Protolinguistic Body Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 59-60):

Although the term ‘protolanguage’ in SFL theory referred in origin to a phase in linguistic ontogenesis, Martin et al. (2013b) and Zappavigna and Martin (2018) have suggested that for the adult communicative system, one of three proposed categories of paralanguage can be interpreted as ‘protolinguistic’ in nature. This is on the grounds that, like the infant meaning system, but unlike the other two categories they propose, it is organised in terms of microfunctions rather than metafunctions.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because 'protolanguage' in SFL Theory also refers to a phase in phylogenesis. Halliday (2003: 14, 16):

When our primary semiotic evolved into a higher-order semiotic (that is, when protolanguage evolved into language) …

… in the evolution of language out of protolanguage …

[2] This is misleading, because 'protolinguistic' was Cléirigh's proposal, and for body language, not paralanguage.

[3] With regard to Cléirigh's proposal, this is very misleading indeed. The category of protolinguistic body language is not proposed on the grounds that it is microfunctionally organised. It is proposed on the basis that it is a bi-stratal social semiotic system that is evolutionarily and developmentally prior to language (and as such, also to be found in other social semiotic species). The microfunctions are the SFL way of modelling paralanguage, not criterial for the category. That is, the microfunctions are a result of the categorisation, not the reason for it.

Misrepresenting The Proposal Put Forward By Cléirigh (2010)

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 50):

This section will outline the nature of the protolanguage system from the descriptions in the case studies by Halliday (1975), Painter ([1984] 2015) and Torr (1997). This will provide a basis for a later discussion of the proposal put forward by Cléirigh (2010) and found in Martin et al. (2013b) and Zappavigna and Martin (2018) that some aspects of adult paralanguage remain protolinguistic in nature.

Blogger Comments:

On the one hand, it is revealing that Cléirigh is only properly acknowledged when there is to be critique. On the other hand, this is misleading because Cléirigh's proposal is not about paralanguage, but about body language, which may or may not serve as paralanguage, and also applies to species without language, in which case it cannot serve as paralanguage

Multiple Dimensions Of Paralanguage Converging On The Same Tone Group

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 40-1):

Although presented as a simple taxonomy, all five subtypes of paralanguage can combine with one another in support of a single tone group.

Several examples of multiple dimensions of paralanguage converging on the same tone group were in fact presented earlier (e.g. the combination of motion towards the future and pointing deixis in Example (69) of Section 1.5.2.1). 

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Multiple Dimensions Of Paralanguage Converging On The Same Tone Group.

[1] To be clear, this is Cléirigh's original model misleadingly presented as if it is a claim of the authors.

[2] As previous posts have demonstrated, this is not true of epilinguistic body language ("semovergent paralanguage"), which can be instantiated with or without language.  The authors have tried to mislead the reader, in this regard, by simply presenting all the text accompanying body language with tone group boundaries (//).

[3] For the misunderstandings and misrepresentations involved in the authors' analysis of this instance, see the two previous posts:

• Gestural Motion "Supporting" Direction In Space Or Time
• Introducing And Tracking Entities Through Finger Pointing

Identification

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 38-9):

As far as pointing deixis is concerned we can return to the examples contrasting past and future in Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.1. The vlogger’s hand points to the past in (58'), and alongside motioning to the future both the vlogger’s index fingers point there (14'''').

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Introducing And Tracking Entities Through Finger Pointing.

[1] To be clear, the authors' claim (ibid.) is that:

From a textual perspective we need to take into account how spoken language introduces entities and keeps track of them once there (IDENTIFICATION) …

Clearly, because 'past' and 'future' are temporal locations, they are not entities, and pointing gestures do not introduce them as entities, nor keep track of them through the discourse.  This is another instance of the authors misrepresenting the data to fit their theory.

Note also that the unit of IDENTIFICATION in Martin (1992) and Martin & Rose (2007) is participant, not entity.

[2] Once again the authors present a tone group that is … wrongly analysed for tonicity (the tonic falls on next, not time).

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.

Hand Shapes

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 32):

As noted earlier, for this paralinguistic sequence hand shape and motion are combined. In other cases hand shapes occur on their own. In the following sequence our vlogger concentrates on the size of the snack she has given her children, without setting the bowl in motion:

(70) //3 then they had a / snack I

(71) //4 gave them / each a / bowl - like a heaping / bowl

(72) //3 full of / Chex Mix and an

(73) //4 applesauce / squeeze and they //

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Gestures Realising Elements Rather Than Figures.

[1] To be clear, epilinguistic body language (rebranded here as 'semovergent paralanguage') is potentially expressed through the whole body, not just through handshapes and their movements.

[2] To be clear, the timing of these gestures functions as linguistic body language (rebranded here as sonovergent paralanguage'), since they beat with the rhythm of the speech, the first on the salient syllable hea-, the second on the tonic bowl, the focus of New information.

[3] To be clear, this demonstrates that these gestures realise elements rather than figures, the latter being what the authors claim to be analysing. These two very rapid gestures are made while the speaker utters the two words heaping and bowl, suggesting that they realise the semantic elements Quality (sense-measurement) and Thing (non-conscious material object) in parallel with the meaning realised in the wording.

[4] To be clear, this is not a sequence.  The two figures

• then they had a snack
• I gave them each a bowl like a heaping bowl full of Chex Mix and applesauce squeeze

are not structurally (logically) related into a sequence.  Any implicit relation between them is a cohesive (textual) relation between messages.

Moreover, the [four] tone groups presented as a sequence are further misanalysed for tonality [and tonicity].  [(71) actually comprises [two] tone groups, with tonic prominence [in (72)] on Mix, highlighting [it] as a Focus of New information.

Super-Salience

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 25-6):

Salient syllables other than the tonic syllable can be given additional prominence (super-salience) through various means. In (14') the vlogger’s pitch on the first tone group is unusually high, and contrasts with the descending lower pitch of the following tone group (a sing/song effect). We use upward and downward arrows, ‘↑’ and ‘↓’, to signal pronounced salience of this kind.

(14''') 

//3 ↑ hopefully next / time I will

//1 get my / ↓hair colour / back //

And the vlogger’s eyebrows move up in tune and in sync with the higher pitch on / hopefully /, before lowering again by the end of the following tone group.

The same sing/song effect follows on and culminates this section of the vlog, with a high pitch on the tonic syllable / now // contrasting with the low pitch on / do //. The vlogger’s eyebrows once again move up and down in tune and in sync with the contrasting pitch salience (this time on contrasting tonic syllables).

//3 [handclap] / um /but for / ↑now 

//3 This will / ↓do //

These rhythmic in-tune gestures reinforce the attitudinal import of the RHYTHM and TONICITY.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Misunderstanding Rhythm And Tonicity.

[1] It will be seen below that not one of syllables discussed here is a non-tonic salient syllable.

[2] Here the authors confuse the textual function of phonological prominence with the interpersonal function of pitch movement.

[3] This misunderstands the data.  The "sing/song" effect is a result of the tone sequence 3^13; see [4].

[4] This analysis misrepresents the data.  What the speaker actually intones can be phonologically represented as:

//3 hopefully / next time I  will
//13 get my / hair colour / back //

Regarding the first of these, contrary to the authors' claims, even on their own analysis, time is not a salient syllable, and listening to the data reveals that the "unusually high pitch" extends throughout the tone group, rather than just for the word time.

With regard to the second tone group, contrary to the authors' claims, hair is a tonic syllable, not a non-tonic salient syllable.  This is because hair is the first tonic in a compound tone group.

[5] This claim is manifestly untrue, since if the eyebrows stay raised for two tone groups, it is neither "in sync" with one tone group (TONALITY) nor "in tune" with the major pitch movements (TONE) of the two tone groups: level/low rise – fall – level/low rise.

This is a case of the authors misrepresenting the data in order to make them fit their misunderstandings of Cléirigh's model.

[6] This "same sing/song" effect is this time simply a result of the tone sequence 3^1-.  What the speaker actually intones can be phonologically represented as:

//3 um /but for / now //1- this will / do //

That is, the handclap co-occurs with the tonic of the previous tone group, back, and the tone of the second tone group here is a narrow fall (1-), not a level/low-rise (3).

[7] Here the authors make a brave stab at guessing what these "rhythmic in-tune" gestures might mean.  But the truth lies elsewhere.

Firstly, this is potentially misleading.  On Cléirigh's original model, it is only the rhythmic dimension or aspect of a gesture that functions textually like the rhythm of speech, and it is only the rise/fall dimension or aspect of a gesture that functions interpersonally like the pitch movement of speech.  Other dimensions or aspects of a gesture may serve additional functions.

Secondly, the notion of 'import' here derives from the work of Martinec (and possibly van Leeuwen), but the authors present it as their own.

Thirdly, the notion of attitudinal import is inappropriate here for two reasons:

• attitude is concerned with interpersonal meaning whereas rhythm and tonicity are concerned with textual meaning, and
• there are no instances of attitude in the instances of text under discussion.

Fourthly, as previously explained, the tonic marks the focus of New information, and the non-tonic salient syllables identify the potential foci of New information that the speaker chose not to instantiate.

The Phonological System Of Tonicity

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 24-5):

The phonological system of TONICITY highlights a peak of informational prominence by positioning the major pitch movement of a tone group (its tone) on one or another of its salient syllables (its culminative salient syllable in the unmarked case). In example (59) the vlogger claps on the syllable realising the tone group’s major pitch movement – hair.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019):  Misrepresenting Tonicity.

[1] To be clear, TONICITY is concerned with tonic prominence, not with the major pitch movement (TONE) of the tone group.

[2] To be clear, tonic prominence (phonology) realises the focus of New information (grammar).

[3] To be clear, in the unmarked case, tonic prominence falls on the salient syllable (the tonic syllable) of the last foot (the tonic foot) of a tone group; but there are many unmarked cases.  The 'culminative' syllable is the tonic syllable, wherever it occurs in a tone group.

[4] To be clear, in Cléirigh's model of linguistic body language, the clap on the tonic prominence is the expression plane realisation of the focus of New information in the grammar.

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.