On The Truth Of The Authors' Claim That They Didn't Relate Paralanguage To Grammatical Structure

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 198-9):

With the exception of mime (discussed later in the chapter) and some pointing deixis (discussed in Chapter 6), paralanguage converges with the intonation and rhythm of spoken language in our data. This argues for a linguistically informed model of prosodic phonology as a prerequisite for the analysis of paralanguage. It also provides one useful criterion for distinguishing somasis from semiosis (since somatic behaviour is not coordinated with prosodic phonology). 

Note that in relating paralanguage to discourse semantics rather than lexicogrammar, we are suggesting that the grammatical structure of a spoken language (specifically, the nature of its syntagms) is not relevant to its paralanguage. In this respect paralanguage resembles the ‘language-neutral’ sign language of the North American Plains Indians, but not the sign languages of Australia’s indigenous communities (Kendon, 2004: 299–303), at least for their more proficient signers.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously, paralanguage that "converges" with intonation and rhythm is not paralanguage, but language that realises the grammatical systems of KEY and INFORMATION by bodily means other than the vocal tract.

[2] To be clear, semiosis makes meaning, "somasis" does not.

[3] This is misleading, because the authors have related "sonovergent" paralanguage, explicitly or implicitly, to the grammatical systems of KEY, INFORMATION and THEME. On the other hand, the body language that the authors call "semovergent" is epilinguistic, and so has no grammar. 

To be clear, the reason why the authors related paralanguage to discourse semantics is that discourse semantics is Martin's model (of cohesion as semantics), though the ideational 'discourse' semantics used was, in truth, the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), rebranded by Martin's former student, Hao.

[4] Here the authors misrepresent the Sign language of the North American Plains Indians as not having a content plane that is stratified into semantics and grammar, the distinguishing feature of language.

Why The Model Of Paralinguistic Periodicity Is Invalid

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 194):

In spoken English, prominence is composed through the TONALITY, TONICITY and RHYTHM systems of prosodic phonology. It is also composed in multiple layers of predictive prominence in discourse, from clause-level Theme to hyper-Theme to layer upon layer of macro-Theme, and in layers of aggregating prominence from clause-level New to hyper-New and so on.

In the face-to-face discourse of live lectures we have noted the potential for expressions of prominence at multiple layers in discourse to synchronise aurally with prosodic phonology and visually with PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY. Such intermodal convergences amplify the prominence of the meanings involved.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in spoken English, the phonological resources for assigning prominence are TONICITY and RHYTHM. TONALITY is the system for selecting the distribution of tone groups.

[2] To be clear, the grammatical resources for assigning prominence are "clause-level" Theme and "information unit-level" New. As previously demonstrated, the authors' avoidance of the information unit allowed them to make an unwarranted connection between grammatical Theme and discourse semantic hyper-Theme and macro-Theme.

As previously pointed out, Martin's 'hyper-Theme', 'macro-Theme' and 'hyper-New' are rebrandings of terms from writing pedagogy: 'topic sentence', 'introductory paragraph' and 'paragraph summary' respectively.

[3] This is misleading because it is untrue. All the authors have done is describe the movement of a lecturer around his lecturing space and correlated his position in space with what he was saying at the time. They provided no evidence that the position assigns prominence, or that it realises the correlated discourse semantic category, such that the position identifies the meaning or the meaning identifies the position.

Significantly, the authors produced no system networks to theorise their system of PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY, their system of meaning named after a structure type.

Some Problems With Paralinguistic Macro-Theme

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 191, 192):

In example (23) we move up one level in the hierarchy of periodicity from the hyper-Theme to the macro-Theme that immediately precedes it.

Sonovergently, the lecturer takes three steps in sync with three silent beats prior to the commencement of the macro-Theme in (24). This takes him from a space on the left to reach the central desk. Synchronous with the commencement of the macro-Theme, the last one is the distal convoluted tubule, he takes off from this central position, moving to the right. On completion of the macro-Theme, he rotates his body 180° to face left and continues stepping backwards in sync with the two silent feet that precede the hyper-Theme. 

This sequence of movement and body orientation is depicted in Figure 6.7. The lecturer ends up on his ‘launch pad’, the position from which he delivers his hyper-Theme before taking off in sync with a new phase of discourse.

The body movement and thematic development are well coordinated. Footfalls in Figure 6.6 synchronise with clause-level Themes and anticipatory positioning scaffolds higher levels of Theme – the lecturer’s positioning to the right of the lecturing space syncs with the hyper-Theme and centre-stage (desk) positioning syncs with the macro-Theme.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'macro-Theme' is Martin's rebranding of the 'Introductory Paragraph' of writing pedagogy as linguistic theory. As linguistic theory, macro-Theme, like hyper-Theme, is a function without a structure: there is no 'macro-Rheme'; that is, there is a point of departure for the message, but there is no body to the message.

As previously explained, 'hyper-Theme', a term coined by Daneš  for a Theme that is later repeated, is Martin's rebranding of the 'Topic Sentence' of writing pedagogy as linguistic theory. As linguistic theory, hyper-Theme is a function without a structure: there is no 'hyper-Rheme'; that is, there is a point of departure for the message, but there is no body to the message.

[2] To be clear, given the contrastive newness of last, and the fact that tone 3 alone misrepresents this statement as tentative, a more likely analysis of this tone group is

//3 ‸the / last one is the //1 distal / convoluted / tubule //

[3] To be clear, here the authors are merely describing how the lecturer moves while delivering this part of his lecture. Merely occupying a space before moving off does not highlight what is being said. And what is first said need not be a "macro-Theme". That is, no realisation relation has been established between "macro-Theme" and body location: a body location does not specify a "macro-Theme" and a "macro-Theme" does not specify a body location.

[4] As previously demonstrated, the relevant footfalls in Figure 6.6 coincide with the Focus of marked New information.

Some Problems With Paralinguistic Hyper-Theme

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 190, 191):

The Themes (underlined in (20)) in the sequence of figures explored earlier compose a method of development which is predicted by its hyper-Theme. In this instance, the good stuff generalises the ideational meanings given thematic prominence in the waves which follow – that is, glucose, vitamins, amino acids and water.

… How does paralanguage support this foregrounding? At the beginning of this phase the lecturer is positioned to the far right of the lecture theatre. This in effect sets up an empty physical space to the left – a space about to be filled with meaning. His body rocks back on time and forward on filtrate in Figure 6.6, presaging his take-off from this position into the space to the left. 

In terms of body movement, his position for the hyper-Theme thus functions quite literally as ‘point of departure’ for his message – as paralinguistic movement through space is coordinated with language unfolding through time.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'hyper-Theme', a term coined by Daneš  for a Theme that is later repeated, is Martin's rebranding of the 'Topic Sentence' of writing pedagogy as linguistic theory. As linguistic theory, hyper-Theme is a function without a structure: there is no 'hyper-Rheme'; that is, there is a point of departure for the message, but there is no body to the message.

[2] To be clear, the good stuff links to glucose, vitamins, amino acids and water textually through cataphoric reference and lexical cohesion. The latter constitute the identity signalled by the demonstrative the, and good stuff is related to glucose, vitamins, amino acids and water by hyponymy. It is this that does the "predicting". 

[3] To be clear, any initial position of the lecturer is a point of departure for a walk around his lecture space. It is simply his location when he begins talking. Merely occupying a space before moving off does not highlight what is being said. And what is first said need not be a "hyper-Theme". That is, no realisation relation has been established between "hyper-Theme" and body location: a body location does not specify a "hyper-Theme" and a "hyper-Theme" does not specify a body location.

[4] As previously demonstrated, the co-ordination of movement with language, in this instance, is the co-occurrence of some of the lecturer's steps with the Focus of marked New information.

Misrepresenting Paralinguistic Deixis And The Problem With Presuming Reference

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

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

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

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

Proper names also function as presuming reference.

 

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

Foreshadowing Problems With 'Textual Paralanguage'

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 161):

This chapter adopts a textual perspective on embodied meaning-making. It deals with the way paralanguage cooperates with spoken language in the management of information flow – how it keeps track of entities in discourse and how it composes waves of ideational and interpersonal meaning (Martin, 1992; Martin and Rose, [2003] 2007). Two linguistic discourse semantic systems are involved: IDENTIFICATION and PERIODICITY. IDENTIFICATION has to do with the resources for introducing and tracking entities. PERIODICITY, as the term implies, has to do with resources for structuring waves of information in discourse. The discourse semantic systems are introduced in turn, together with the related paralinguistic systems that model the potential for convergence with language, those of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS and PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] For the theoretical problems with these discourse semantic systems in these two publications, see

• identification (Martin 1992)
• identification (Martin and Rose 2007)
• texture (Martin 1992)
• periodicity (Martin and Rose 2007).

[2] To be clear, Martin's discourse semantic system of IDENTIFICATION is his rebranding of the lexicogrammatical system of cohesive REFERENCE (Halliday & Hasan 1976) in which he confuses reference with deixis and ideational denotation (e.g. 'introducing entities'). It will be seen in the review of this chapter that the confusion of reference with deixis is the basis of the IDENTIFICATION (REFERENCE) system of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS.

[3] To be clear, Martin's discourse semantic system of PERIODICITY is his rebranding of writing pedagogy as linguistic theory, in which 'introductory paragraph' is rebranded 'macro-Theme', 'topic sentence' is rebranded 'hyper-Theme' (a misunderstanding of Daneš's term), 'paragraph summary' is rebranded 'hyper-New', and 'text summary' is rebranded 'macro-New'. it will be seen in the review of this chapter that the system proposed, PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY, is largely concerned with lexicogrammatical INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION, as realised through the phonological system of TONALITY. In the authors' terms, this makes the system 'sonovergent', not 'semovergent', which is contrary to their model.

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.