A Problem With The System Of Paralinguistic Orientation

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

[2] To be clear, the system in Figure 5.16 models paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system, and although this is consistent with the notion of a semiotic system, it is inconsistent with the preceding chapters in which paralanguage is misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. Where in previous chapters it was just paralinguistic expression that was semovergent with language, in this chapter it is both paralinguistic content and expression that is semovergent with language.

Not Acknowledging The Intellectual Source Of 'Paralinguistic Proximity'

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

A chart depicting Edward T. Hall's interpersonal distances

[2] To be clear, the system in Figure 5.15 models paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system, and although this is consistent with the notion of a semiotic system, it is inconsistent with the preceding chapters in which paralanguage is misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. Where in previous chapters it was just paralinguistic expression that was semovergent with language, in this chapter it is both paralinguistic content and expression that is semovergent with language.

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem With Interpersonal Sonovergent Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 116):

Sonovergent paralanguage is only meaningful in its relation to the prosodic phonology of co-expressed speech (Halliday, 1967, 1970a; Halliday and Greaves, 2008; Smith and Greaves, 2015) (see Chapters 1 and 3). … Where interpersonal sonovergent paralanguage resonates with tone choices it is frequently expressed in up or down movements of the head, eyebrows or arms in tune with pitch movements in co-articulated speech.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, sonovergent paralanguage is neither sonovergent nor paralanguage. It is not sonovergent because the bodily expressions diverge from the phonological expressions, and it is not paralanguage because it is language, since the expressions realise the grammatical system of KEY. Again, this is why it is termed 'linguistic' in Cléirigh's model, which the authors in this book rebrand as their own.

Foreshadowing Problems With Chapter 5 Analyses

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

Analyses explore the paralinguistic systems of interpersonal sonovergence in which movements of parts of the body or face rise and fall in tune with the intonation contours of the prosodic phonology and interpersonal semovergence in which paralinguistic expressions converge with interpersonal meanings in spoken discourse. … System choices are illustrated in instances from Coraline and discussion focuses on intermodal convergences in expressions of emotion and the enactment of inter-character relations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, sonovergent paralanguage is neither sonovergent nor paralanguage. It is not sonovergent because the bodily expressions diverge from the phonological expressions, and it is not paralanguage because it is language, since the expressions realise the grammatical system of KEY. Again, this is why it is termed 'linguistic' in Cléirigh's model, which the authors in this book rebrand as their own.

[2] As previously explained, the notion of convergence misunderstands paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system, and the notion of semovergence entails that these expressions realise the content of language. However, since the expression of these meanings (emotions) does not require the evolution and development of language, these systems are protolinguistic, not epilinguistic, which means that the meanings that are expressed are not metafunctional (interpersonal) but microfunctional (personal).

[3] As previously observed, the data used by the authors is not the body language of humans, but representations of body language on clay puppets, as constructed by animators, using the emotion-face coding proposed by Ekman. The data are thus epilinguistic depictions of a protolinguistic system.

Misrepresenting Halliday & Matthiessen's Semantics As Martin And Hao's Discourse Semantics

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 91, 92):

This chapter explores how ideational meaning is realised in paralanguage. Ideational meaning is concerned with how experience is represented: ‘what kinds of activities are undertaken, and how participants undertaking these activities are described and classified’ (Martin and Rose, [2003] 2007: 17). The linguistic systems of ideation and connexion, described in Martin (1992) and developed by Hao (2015), model ideational meaning at the level of discourse semantics as sequences of figures made up of elements of different kinds: entities (objects), occurrences (happenings/motion) and qualities (attributes/manner) (Table 4.1). As discussed in Chapter 1, we set aside connexion, since, as in filmic discourse, there is no way of making it explicit in paralanguage alone and linking relations among gestures have to be abduced (Bateman, 2007, 2014).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, by this, the authors do not mean 'how the ideational meaning of paralinguistic body language is realised by its expression systems', but 'how the ideational meaning of language is realised by paralinguistic body language expression systems. As previously explained, this is because the authors misunderstand paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system.

[2] This is very misleading indeed. The terms 'sequence', 'figure' and 'element', and their congruent realisations in lexicogrammar, derive from the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), not from the discourse semantics of Martin (1992). Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 49):

In stark contrast, Martin (1992: 325) proposes only the 'message' and message part' for his ideational discourse semantic systems:

and relates his discourse semantic logical unit to clause functions (except circumstances) and his discourse semantic experiential unit to group and phrase rank functions and clause-rank circumstances (ibid.):

Hao was Martin's PhD student and she accordingly adopted his practice of rebranding the work of others as Martin's model. In Figure 4.1, based on Hao (2015), she cherry-picks from Halliday & Matthiessen's (1999) system of elements, rebranding their 'process' as her 'occurrence', and reinterpreting subtypes of participant, 'quality' and 'thing' as least delicate types, with the latter rebranded as her 'entity'. Cf. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 67):

Note also that Table 4.1 also confuses form (clause complex, clause) with function (participant, process, circumstance), these latter being the functions of groups and phrases.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The enhancement relation of 'before', for example, can be realised by directed gestures that use a dimension of the gesturing space as the time dimension. 

[4] This is another misunderstanding that arises because the authors misunderstand paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system. The logical relations do not obtain between gestures on the expression plane; they obtain on the content plane, and gestures are a means of realising them on the expression plane.

Misunderstanding Phonological Systems As Interacting With The Sonovergent Systems Of Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 67, 68, 70):

Our main aim in this chapter is to provide a description of those phonological systems of language that interact with the sonovergent systems of paralanguage presented elsewhere in this book. …

Our approach to the functions of vocal semiotic systems, in their interactions with bodily semiotic systems, is developed from the perspective of the discourse semantics described in Martin and Rose ([2003] 2007) …

Our work takes a discourse semantic view on the semiotic functions of speech.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because phonological systems do not "interact" with the sonovergent systems of paralanguage — the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's 'linguistic' body language. This is because the sonovergent systems of paralanguage are not paralanguage, but language. They are principally the grammatical systems of INFORMATION and KEY realised by body parts other than (divergent from) the vocal tract.

[2] This is misleading, because, in this chapter, the authors' approach to the functions of vocal semiotic systems is not developed from the perspective of the discourse semantics. Moreover, in later chapters, the authors do not use the discourse semantic system of IDEATION in Martin & Rose (2003, 2007) but a version of the ideational semantics in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999). See here for a detailed review of Martin & Rose (2007).

Misrepresenting Epilinguistic ("Semovergent") Body Language As Protolinguistic

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

Secondly, it is clear that not all forms of adult facial or bodily gesture that first arise in the protolanguage are assigned to the ‘protolinguistic body language’ category by Zappavigna and Martin (2018). The pointing gesture, for example, has already been discussed as arising in early protolanguage but becomes generalised during the transition to function in concert with a variety of ideational and interpersonal forms of linguistic (or paralinguistic) expression. This gesture is accordingly accepted by Zappavigna and Martin as semovergent and part of the textual metafunction. 

In addition, forms of mime that first arise within the imaginative microfunction of protolanguage (e.g. raising an imaginary cup to the lips) are recognised in Table 2.4 as ideational and so also within the semovergent paralanguage category. It is not therefore the case that having a clear origin in protolanguage is regarded by Zappavigna and Martin as sufficient grounds for classing an adult gesture as a protolinguistic ‘leftover’.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is the second of authors' arguments against Cléirigh's category of protolinguistic body language. Where the first argument was a false claim about what is wrongly included in the category, this second argument is a false claim about what is wrongly excluded from the category.

[2] This is misleading because it is not true. The protolinguistic category of body language includes all semiosis that does not require the evolution of language in the species and the development of language in the individual. See further below.

[3] To be clear, the reason why the pointing gesture is classified as epilinguistic by Cléirigh, and so as semovergent by his plagiarisers Zappavigna and Martin, is because its meaning as 'deictic identification' (p56) only emerges in the developmental transition to language, as the authors themselves acknowledge. The fact that it is not protolinguistic is demonstrated by the inability of other social semiotic species, such as rainbow lorikeets (Trichoglossus haematodus) to interpret a pointing gesture as referential.

[4] To be clear, the reason why mime is classified as epilinguistic by Cléirigh, and so as semovergent by his plagiarisers Zappavigna and Martin, is because it only emerges in the developmental transition to language, as the authors themselves acknowledge. The fact that it is not protolinguistic is demonstrated by its absence in other social semiotic species, such as rainbow lorikeets (Trichoglossus haematodus). 

But in any case, this 'let's pretend' function is of a very different nature to the expression of the ideational meanings of language in gesture for an addressee to understand, as in a game of Charades. As Halliday (2004 [1976]: 73) explains:

Finally we have the imaginative function, which is the function of language whereby the child creates an environment of his own. As well as moving into, taking over, and exploring the universe which he finds around him, the child also uses language for creating a universe of his own, a world initially of pure sound, but which gradually turns into one of story and make-believe and ‘let’s pretend’, and ultimately into the realm of poetry and imaginative writing. This we may call the ‘let’s pretend’ function of language.

[5] To be clear, as demonstrated above, the two examples of body language provided by the authors both arise only in the transition to language, and so do not qualify as protolinguistic body language.

Questioning The Notion Of Protolinguistic Body Language

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

This model usefully distinguishes paralinguistic behaviour that can only accompany speech (being closely tied to the interpersonal and textual systems of spoken language) from all the rest. This is our category of sonovergent paralanguage, where paralinguistic expression moves with speech prosodies. The remaining paralinguistic behaviour is divided in Table 2.4 between protolinguistic and semovergent categories, both of which may (but need not) accompany speech. The question, then, is whether it is helpful to separate out some of this expressive behaviour as protolinguistic – which would be to suggest that the adult semiotic communicative system simultaneously deploys language and (paralinguistic) protolanguage.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's 'linguistic body language' as 'sonovergent paralanguage' demonstrates two serious misunderstandings of Cléirigh's model. On the one hand, linguistic body language is not sonovergent, because its gestural expression is divergent from phonology. And on the other hand, it is not paralanguage because it is language (Halliday 1989: 30): like prosodic phonology, it realises the grammatical systems of INFORMATION (textual) and KEY (interpersonal).

[2] To be clear, the use of the terms 'paralinguistic behaviour' and 'expressive behaviour' confirm the observation made in the previous post that the authors have misunderstood paralanguage to be an expression-only semiotic system.

[3] To be clear, there is no question that adults simultaneously deploy language and protolanguage.  Halliday (2002[1996]: 389):

Certain features of the human protolanguage, our primary semiotic, persist into adult life; for example expressions of pain, anger, astonishment or fear (rephonologised as “interjections”, like ouch!, oy!, wow! …).

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!.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

Interjections are certainly quite different from adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions; they tend to be protolinguistic remnants in adult languages.

Moreover, the theoretical advantage of separating protolinguistic body language from the other types is that it distinguishes the body language common to all social semiotic species from the body languages that are unique to humans and require the prior evolution and development of language.

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.

The Model Of Paralanguage In Martin et al. (2013b) And Zappavigna And Martin (2018)

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 45):

This chapter elaborates in greater detail the ontogenetic perspective underlying the accounts of paralanguage provided by Matthiessen (2009) and Cléirigh (2010) – the latter informing Martin et al. (2013b) and Zappavigna and Martin (2018) – which have influenced our model. … 

Following this account, Section 2.6 presents a case for our current adaptation of the model of adult paralanguage found in Martin et al. (2013b) and Zappavigna and Martin (2018) by expanding the semovergent category of adult communication to include aspects previously regarded as ‘protolinguistic body language’.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the one hand, this is misleading, because Cléirigh (2010) is a model of body language in which one type, linguistic, is language, not paralanguage, and the other two types, protolinguistic and epilinguistic, can function in the absence of language.

On the other hand, the perspective underlying Cléirigh (2010) is as much phylogenetic as ontogenetic, since the types of body language are distinguished in terms of the evolution of semiosis in the species just as much as in terms of the development of semiosis in the individual.

[2] To be clear, the terms 'informing' and 'influenced' here are misleading because the model in Martin et al. (2013b) and Zappavigna and Martin (2018) is Cléirigh's model.

[3] Here again, the authors remind the reader that Cléirigh's model of body language is their model of paralanguage. The plagiarism in this work is effected through myriad small steps.

[4] Again, the model in Martin et al. (2013b) and Zappavigna and Martin (2018) is Cléirigh's model.

[5] To be clear, on the one hand, expanding the semovergent category means contracting the number of paralanguage types to just one, since sonovergent paralanguage is language, not paralanguage, because it serves the same function as prosodic phonology.

On the other hand, including protolinguistic body language in the semovergent category creates a contradiction in terms, since the semovergent category is the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language, which is distinguished from the protolinguistic variety in requiring the prior development/evolution of language. Since protolinguistic body language is the body language that humans share with all other social semiotic species, the authors are here claiming that the body language of, say baboons, requires the prior development/evolution of language.

Longer Wavelengths Of Information Flow

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 39, 233):

As far as longer wavelengths of information flow are concerned,³³ our vlogger is seated, and so whole body movement from one location to another is not a factor (as it would be, e.g. for a lecturer roaming to and fro across a stage; cf. Hood, 2011; Hood and Maggora, 2016).

³³ van Leeuwen (1985, 1992) and Martinec (2002) argue that SFL’s phonological hierarchy can be pushed up several wavelengths beyond the tone group; their work suggests that higher-level rhythm would converge with higher-level periodicity in Martin’s (1992) framework.

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Claim That Units Of Speech Rhythm Realise Elements Of Writing Pedagogy.

To be clear, the claim here is that proposed higher level phonological units "converge" with Martin's discourse semantic functions of macro-Theme, hyper-Theme, hyper-New and macro-New.  There are several obvious theoretical inconsistencies here.

The over-arching inconsistency is that the authors are proposing that patterns of speech rhythm correspond to pedagogical suggestions on how to write.  This is because Martin's four discourse semantic functions are actually rebrandings of introductory paragraph, topic sentence, paragraph summary and text summary, as previously explained.

A second inconsistency is that speech rhythm can only identify potential New information, and bears no systematic relation to thematicity.

A third inconsistency is that the use of gesture to realise New information is linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

A fourth inconsistency is the matching of structural units (wavelengths beyond the tone group) with elements of structure (Themes and News).

A fifth inconsistency, in the authors' own terms, is the use of their term for a relation between the same stratum of different semiotic systems, converge, for an interstratal relation within language.

Textual Semovergent Paralanguage

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 38, 233):

From a textual perspective³² we need to take into account how spoken language introduces entities and keeps track of them once there (IDENTIFICATION) and how it composes waves of information in tone groups, clauses and beyond (PERIODICITY). Semovergent paralanguage potentially supports these resources with pointing gestures and whole body movement and position.

³² Martinec (1998) interprets textual meaning as realised through cohesion, following Halliday and Hasan (1976); as introduced earlier for this monograph we follow Martin (1992) who reinterprets cohesion as discourse semantics (Martin, 2014), organised metafunctionally in Martin and Rose ([2003] 2007) as ideational resources (IDEATION, CONNEXION), interpersonal resources (NEGOTIATION, APPRAISAL) and textual resources (IDENTIFICATION, PERIODICITY).

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Textual Semovergent Paralanguage.

[1] To be clear, despite this claim, it will be seen that the authors provide no instances of semovergent paralanguage in this paper that either introduce entities or keep track of them.

Moreover, IDENTIFICATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) grammatical cohesive systems of REFERENCE and ELLIPSIS-&-SUBSTITUTION, misunderstood, confused with ideational denotation and the interpersonal DEIXIS of nominal group structure, and relocated to discourse semantics; evidence here.

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, this confuses content (information) with expression (tone group), following Martin (1992: 384).  On the other hand, on Cléirigh's original model, any aspect of body language that highlights the focus of New information, or delineates a unit of information, functions as linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

[3] To be clear, PERIODICITY is Martin and Rose's (2003, 2007) reinterpretation of what Martin (1992: 393) models as interstratal interaction patterns as a textual systems of Martin's discourse semantic stratum.  However, Martin's model misrepresents writing pedagogy as linguistic theory, such that:

• introductory paragraph is rebranded as macro-Theme,
• topic sentence is rebranded as hyper-Theme,
• paragraph summary is rebranded as hyper-New, and
• text summary is rebranded as macro-New.

It will be seen that, unsurprisingly, the authors provide no instances of semovergent paralanguage in this paper that 'compose waves of information', let alone gestural realisations of introductory paragraphs, topic sentences, paragraph summaries or text summaries.

[4] To be clear, here Martin and his former student follow Martin (1992) in rebranding misunderstandings Halliday & Hasan's (1976) non-structural textual systems of lexicogrammar as structural discourse semantic systems across three metafunctions.

[5] To be clear, IDEATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) textual system of LEXICAL COHESION, misunderstood, confused with logical relations between experiential elements of nominal group structure, also misunderstood, and relocated to discourse semantics as an experiential system; evidence here.

[6] To be clear, CONNEXION does not feature in Martin and Rose (2007), or in Martin (1992). The term 'CONNEXION' is a rebranding of Martin's CONJUNCTION by Martin's former student, Hao. CONJUNCTION is Martin's misunderstanding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) textual lexicogrammatical system of cohesive conjunction as a logical system at the level of discourse semantics.  Moreover, it confuses non-structural textual relations with structural logical relations, and misunderstands and misapplies the expansion relations involved; evidence here.

That is to say, CONJUNCTION was the only one of Halliday and Hasan's cohesive systems that Martin neglected to rebrand as his own system, and this oversight was finally addressed by his former student.

[7] To be clear, NEGOTIATION is Martin's (1992) rebranding of Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION.

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.

Representation (Ideational Semovergent Paralanguage)

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 29):

Representation (ideational semovergent paralanguage)

From an ideational perspective we need to take into account how spoken language combines entities, occurrences and qualities as figures (ideation). Semovergent paralanguage supports these resources with hand shapes, which potentially concur with entities, and hand/arm motion, which potentially concurs with occurrences (Hood and Hao, 2021); the hand/arm motion is optionally directed, potentially concurring with spatiotemporal direction (i.e. to/from here and there in space, to/from now and then in time). We say ‘potentially concurring’ because ideational paralanguage can be used on its own, without accompanying spoken language; see the discussion of mime in Chapter 7.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Ideational Semovergent Paralanguage.

[1] To be clear, 'semovergent paralanguage' is the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language.

[2] As previously explained, and argued here, Martin's ideational discourse semantic systems of IDEATION and CONNEXION are neither ideational nor semantic, since they are misunderstood rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexical cohesion and cohesive conjunction, which are lexicogrammatical systems of the textual metafunction.

[3] To be clear, this is a matter of language, regardless of whether it is spoken, written or signed.

[4] To be clear, in the discourse semantic system of IDEATION (Martin 1992: 314-9; Martin & Rose 2007: 96), 'entity' refers only to a subtype of Range.

[5] To be clear, in the discourse semantic system of IDEATION (Martin 1992: 314-9; Martin & Rose 2007: 90ff), these are termed 'processes', not 'occurrences'.

[6] This is very misleading.  To be clear, 'figure' is a type of phenomenon in the (genuinely) ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 48).  It does not feature in the discourse semantic system of IDEATION in Martin (1992).  Martin & Rose (2007: 74) introduce the term 'figure' without acknowledging their source and without integrating it into their model of IDEATION.  Moreover, because Martin's IDEATION is a rebranded misunderstanding of lexical cohesion, it cannot be integrated into their model in a theoretically consistent way.

…

[8] The word 'support' here is potentially misleading, since epilinguistic body language makes meaning in its own right.

[9] Here the authors propose 1-to-1 relationships between the expression of body language and the content of language — instead of the content of body language.  This confusion leads the authors to the false conclusion at the end of the [2022] paper that body language is just another expression mode of language itself.

Even so, the validity of proposed 1-to-1 relationships will be examined in upcoming posts.

[10] Here the authors mislead the reader by presenting a claim of Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language as if it is their own.

[11] See the upcoming critique of the authors' discussion of 'mime'.

Semovergent Paralanguage Converging With Discourse Semantics

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 28-9, 233):

Semovergent paralanguage is convergent with the lexicogrammar and discourse semantics of spoken language (its content plane). We adopt a discourse semantic perspective on these meaning-making resources here (Martin and Rose, [2003] 2007). Drawing on terms from Painter et al. (2013) we can position ideational paralanguage as concurring with IDEATION systems (but not CONNEXION, as will be discussed later), interpersonal paralanguage as resonating with APPRAISAL systems (but not NEGOTIATION, as will be discussed later) and textual body language as coordinating information flow alongside IDENTIFICATION and PERIODICITY²⁸ systems. These convergences are outlined in Table 1.6.

 

²⁸ Semovergent synchronicity is concerned with the syncing of paralanguage with periodic structure composed above and beyond prosodic phonology.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Seriously Misunderstanding Cléirigh's Epilinguistic Body Language.

[2] This slightly altered from Martin & Zappavigna (2019), but see the original comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019):

• Ideational Semovergent Paralanguage Concurring With Ideation And Connexion
• Interpersonal Paralanguage Resonating With Negotiation And Appraisal
• Textual Paralanguage "Syncing" With Identification And Periodicity

[3] It will be seen that the "convergences" that the authors propose are between the expression plane of semovergent paralanguage [epilinguistic body language] and the content plane of language. Here the authors reveal their serious misunderstanding of paralanguage as just an expression plane system. See also from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019):

• The Argument That Paralanguage Is An Expression System Of Language
• Paralanguage As Language Expression

Prosodic Phonology Demarcating Somatic From Semiotic Behaviour

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 26-8):

The contribution of sonovergent paralanguage to the vlog is interrupted in tone group 19 of Appendix B3, suspended for tone groups 20–24 and resumes for tone group 25 (examples (61)–(65)) – to allow for a somatic phase during which the vlogger uses her left hand to scratch her right arm. This phase unfolds as follows:

(61) //3 lighter than it / was a few / days ago

(62) //1 ^ but / yeah it’s

(63) //1 such a / bummer and then I

(64) //2 went to / Target

(65) //3 ^ like / two days / later and there was a //

The vlogger stops looking at her followers and begins scratching in the final foot of (61'). The scratching and absence of gaze continues for two tone groups ((62')–(63')). Gaze resumes in the final foot of (64'). And the vlogger then resumes gesturing in (65'). 

It is interesting to note that the vlogger does not scratch in sync with the RHYTHM, TONICITY and TONALITY of the text; the scratching lasts for two and a half tone groups and does not match the timing of salient and tonic syllables. But the paralanguage remains in sync, stopping precisely at the tonic syllable of (61') (/ days ago //), resuming with a smile precisely at the tonic syllable of (64') (/ Target //) and resuming with gesture precisely at the beginning of (65'). This indicates that synchronicity with prosodic phonology can function as a demarcating criterion for distinguishing somatic from semiotic behaviour.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Interpreting Averted Gaze As Non-Semiotic.

[1] To be clear, 'sonovergent paralanguage' is the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's linguistic body language.

[2] Here the authors interpret the breaking of eye-contact with the addressee as non-semiotic behaviour (somasis). The problem with this is that breaking eye-contact with the addressee is just as meaningful (semiotic) as maintaining eye-contact.  In Cléirigh's original model, these are features of protolinguistic body language, the opposition being a human variant of the type of body language also recognisable in other species.

[3] This is hardly surprising, given that scratching an itch is not linguistic body language. In Peircean semiotics, a scratch might be interpreted as an indexical sign, indicating an itch or nervousness.

[4] To be clear, in Cléirigh's original model, a smile is another example of protolinguistic body language, interpreted as a threat in some social species. 

[5]  To be clear, the claim here is that the mere fact that gestures are speech-timed distinguishes them from non-semiotic behaviour.  The reason this is untrue is that, in Cléirigh's original model, only one of the three types of body language, linguistic body language, is speech-timed.  Consequently, 'synchronicity' merely distinguishes linguistic body language from everything else, whether semiotic (protolinguistic or epilinguistic body language) or non-semiotic ('somasis')

The Phonological System Of Tone

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

The phonological system of TONE is realised through pitch movement. In example (56) the vlogger’s eyebrows move up in tune with the rising tone (tone 2) on the syllable prev.

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Ignoring Content And Getting The Phonology Wrong.

To be clear, this presents Cléirigh's linguistic body language as the authors' sonovergent paralanguage, though in doing so, the authors only present the expression plane of the system, ignoring the content being realised.

Since this is linguistic body language, the interpersonal meaning that the pitch and eyebrow movement both realise depends on the grammar, the choice of MOOD, which in this instance is declarative:

//4 but /^ I could / not / find the /hair dye that I //2 bought / previously when I //3 dyed my / hair which I //3 loved I //3 loved the/ first time

On Halliday's model, the combination of tone 2 with declarative mood realises a protesting or contradicting statement (Halliday 1994: 305), as in

//2 that / can't be / true // ('so don't try and tell me!')
//2 ^ it / didn't / hurt you ('so don't make a fuss') 

In the authors' data, however, the speaker is not making a protesting or contradicting statement, and so this casts doubt on the phonological analysis. Listening to the data reveals that the pitch movement on the tonic is fairly level, tone 3.

The basic meaning of ('low-rising') tone 3, on the other hand, is that the information being realised is dependent on something else (op. cit.: 303).  In this monologic instance, it could be take to mean 'hold on, there's more to come'.  (In dialogue, tone 3 can function as a as a turn-keeping device: 'I'm not finished yet, so don't interrupt!'.) On this basis, the instance in question is better analysed as an emphatic variant of tone 3, just like the three tones that follow (and also the  preceding "tone 4").

Two trivial errors can be noted:

• the tonic syllable is pre, not prev, and
• a 'rise-fall' eyebrow movement corresponds to tone 5, not tone 2.

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.