Mime As Semovergent Paralanguage That Does Not Accompany Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 200-1, 202-3):

An important exception to these principles is what is commonly referred to as mime. In terms of our model mime is semovergent paralanguage that does not accompany language, an apparent contradiction in terms. To explore this further we will return to a miming segment in our vlogger’s ‘Parking Lot’ phase. …

In this sequence, there is a miming segment where tone groups might have been, as the vlogger mimes the paralanguage of her parking spot assailant. She first mimes his exasperation. 

She then mimes his ideational paralanguage as he twice gestures for her to leave (including a deictic pointing gesture).

The third time his motion gesture is mimed in fact concurs with language.

As we can see, the two miming segments are heavily co-textualised by language that makes explicit what is going on. The orientation to the narrative introduces the recurrent problem of someone following the vlogger in a parking lot and waiting for her to leave. The miming segments are introduced with an incomplete tone group //3 cars be- / hind him and he was like // [mimics man’s gesture and expression] //, with a missing Tonic segment. The vlogger then mimes the expected information before making it linguistically explicit in a tone group converging with the third iteration of the gesture.  

Setting aside the mime performances of mime artists (the ‘art of silence’ Marcel Marceau referred to), we can predict that co-textualisation of this kind is a generalisable pattern as far as semovergent paralanguage (in the absence of language) is concerned. What the moment of mime does not provide as far as language is concerned, the immediately preceding and following co-text does. The convergent nature of semovergent paralanguage as a recurrent pattern is clear.

Blogger Comments:

With the exception of the correction of 'pantomime' to 'mime', all but the first paragraph is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 26). See the original review at Mime As Paralanguage.

[1] Importantly, this is an instance of using body language to depict body language. In Cléirigh's original model, the miming body language is epilinguistic, since it is a depiction that is only made possible by the ontogenesis of language, as evinced by the inability of other animals to do it.

The body language of the motorist, on the other hand, is at first protolinguistic (personal microfunction: exasperation) and then epilinguistic (SPEECH FUNCTION: gesturing a command for her to leave).

[2] As the authors demonstrate, this type of mime does indeed accompany language, thereby invalidating their model of mime as semovergent paralanguage that does not accompany language.

[3] Significantly, the authors do not actually identify the system of linguistic meaning that the mime is said to converge with in their model, being only concerned to relate this semovergent paralanguage to phonology, as if it were sonovergent instead. The authors frequently state categorically that paralanguage cannot "converge" with NEGOTIATION (p29, 34, 38, 203), which the gesture of a command, above, clearly contradicts.

Reference Endophoric To Body Language [2]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 171-2, 166):

The selection [virtual:location] is also realised paralinguistically through an unresolved vector. The more delicate choice [home] is realised by identifying a space occupied by the speaker; and the opposing choice [away] is realised by pointing to a space other than the space occupied by the speaker (Figure 6.2). 

Paralinguistic expressions of [home] and [away] can converge with the identification of both time and space in verbal discourse. The feature [home] can accordingly converge with both ‘here’ and ‘now’. As noted by Calbris (2011: 128), past time may be pointed to as a location behind a speaker. Where the past is expressed in language in relation to the future, synchronous paralinguistic deixis typically points to a space to the left of the speaker then to the right.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, to claim that a pointing gesture that identifies a location in space is an "unresolved" vector is self-contradiction, since the vector is "resolved" by the location that it points to. So, in such instances, the deixis is not virtual.

[2] As previously explained, Figure 6.2 is not a system of DEIXIS, but a classification of referents in the environment of body language. Some of the referents are distinguished in terms of deixis (self vs other, 'home' vs 'away'), but most are not (actual vs virtual, semiosis vs location, retrospective vs prospective). Moreover, the network presents referents as realised by the gestures that point to them (cf. referent 'dog' realised by reference item 'this'), and in four cases, referents are realised by the insertion (+) of a pointing gesture into some unacknowledged structure. And in one case, the feature 'virtual', the referent is realised by the structural insertion of a gesture that does not point to it (+ unresolved vector).

[3] To be clear, this is another example of using body language to make endophoric reference. In the previous example, material elements of outer experience (mouth, temple) ideationally construe semiotic elements of inner experience (word, encode), and the pointing gesture signals that those meanings are recoverable from those construals by body language. In this example, the left-right dimension of interpersonal space ideationally construes the past-future dimension of interpersonal time (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 144, 332), and the pointing gesture signals that those meanings are recoverable from those construals by body language. Again, the vector is "resolved" and so the "deixis" is not virtual.

Why The Model Of Paralinguistic Deixis Is Theoretically Invalid

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 166):

Key PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS options are outlined in Figure 6.2 and illustrated in the following sections.

As modelled in Figure 6.2, PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS identifying an [actual] person, thing or place opens up a further choice of [self] or [other]. The feature [self] is realised through an embodied vector directed inwards towards to the speaker’s body and [other] through a vector directed outwards from the body.

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Figure 6.2 is not a system of DEIXIS, but a classification of referents in the environment of body language. Some of the referents are distinguished in terms of deixis (self vs other, 'home' vs 'away'), but most are not (actual vs virtual, semiosis vs location, retrospective vs prospective). These inconsistencies alone invalidate the authors' model of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS.

Moreover, the network presents referents as realised by the gestures that point to them (cf. referent 'dog' realised by reference item 'this'), and in four cases, referents are realised by the insertion (+) of a pointing gesture into some unacknowledged structure. And in one case, the feature 'virtual', the referent is realised by the structural insertion of a gesture that does not point to it (+ unresolved vector).

On the other hand, this network does model paralanguage as content and expression, so it is both content and expression that are convergent with the content of language (as in Chapter 5, but not in Chapter 4).

Problems With The Authors' Analysis Of Paralinguistic Focus

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 146-7):

In (24), PARALINGUISTIC FOCUS as [sharpen] is expressed in the narrowly targeted index-finger point that zooms in towards the Other Mother. This expression of sharpened FOCUS functions to identify the target (Other Mother) in a highly specifying manner (see Chapter 6). This together with the expression of negative judgement in the spoken language in stole serves to amplify the expression of [disdain] in FACIAL AFFECT.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, GRADUATION is the scaling of an interpersonal APPRAISAL (Martin & White 2005: 135). The evaluation here is made through the process stole, so any upscaling of the evaluation must be an upscaling of stole not of the evaluated you. So there is no sharpening of the FOCUS of evaluation here (nor a quantifying of the FORCE of evaluation expressed by the extended arm). The interpersonal function of the orientation of the index-finger of the clay puppet here is simply deictic: it points to the addressee you from the speaker I .

[2] To be clear, this is an instance of 'pointing the finger' which is to accuse or blame (someone) — a 'j'accuse' — a gesture which the authors might easily have classified, in their own terms, as an emblem, since they write (p38):

Gestures treated as playing a speech functional role in dialogue in other models are treated as emblems in our framework.

In terms of Cléirigh's original model, this is a genuine example of epilinguistic body language — not to be found in protolinguistic species — in which the gesture expresses an appraisal of judgement, an accusation of wrongdoing, which the authors claimed (pp118, 121) that body language can not do.

[3] To be clear, the judgement instantiated as body language is consistent with the judgement instantiated as language. Whether or not the face of the clay puppet here specifically represents disdain, a feeling of contempt for someone or something regarded as unworthy or inferior is arguable, at the very least.

Problems With The System Of Paralinguistic Engagement

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 144):

From a social semiotic approach, Hood (2011) considers how embodied paralanguage resonates with linguistic ENGAGEMENT resources (see Figure 5.13).

 

For example, a prone (palm down) hand gesture realises [contraction] and functions to close down space for the negotiation of propositions or proposals. A supine (palm up) hand gesture realises [expansion] and functions to open up space for negotiation. Hao and Hood (2019) and Hood and Zhang (2020) also discuss an oscillating movement of the hand as softening focus in relation to the fulfilment or actualisation of a propositional figure, while additionally realising [heteroglossic: expansion]. Heteroglossic [expansion] and [contraction] are frequently realised through the positioning of the hands but can also be expressed through a more general open or closed posture of the body torso or the positioning of the head. An open face (tilted upwards) realising [expansion] will also display relaxed rather than compressed facial muscles.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear ,the system in Figure 5.13 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.

[2] Importantly, this use of body language requires the prior evolution of language — it is not found in pre-linguistic species — and so is epilinguistic, in terms of Cléirigh's model. This contrasts with the prior discussion in this chapter of the bodily expression of emotion, which is found in pre-linguistic species, and so is protolinguistic, in terms of Cléirigh's model.

Problems With The System Of The 'Emotion' Threat

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 135):

The sets of voice qualities which differentiate VOICE AFFECT features of [fear], [anxiety] and [anger] are shown in Figure 5.9.

 

Blogger Comments:

The system in Figure 5.9 models paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system, and although this is consistent with the notion of a semiotic system, it is inconsistent with the preceding chapters in which paralanguage is misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. Where in previous chapters it was just paralinguistic expression that was semovergent with language, in this chapter it is both paralinguistic content and expression that is semovergent with language.

Further, in Figure 5.9, the authors again misrepresent 'threat' as an emotion, with its result (fear, anxiety) and reason (anger) as its subtypes.

Problems With The System Of The 'Emotion' Spirit

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 133):

VOICE AFFECT as [spirit:down] has opposing features of [misery] and [ennui]. The voice quality contours which realise these features are shown in Figure 5.8.

Blogger Comments:

The system in Figure 5.8 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.

Problems With The System Of Voice Affect

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

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

Blogger Comments:

The system in Figure 5.7 models paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system, and although this is consistent with the notion of a semiotic system, it is inconsistent with the preceding chapters in which paralanguage is misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. Where in previous chapters it was just paralinguistic expression that was semovergent with language, in this chapter it is both paralinguistic content and expression that is semovergent with language.

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

Inconsistency In The Authors' Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

That is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

Misrepresenting 'Threat' As An Emotion

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

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

Blogger Comments;

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

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

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

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

An Inconsistent Use Of 'Semovergent'

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 119-20):

The linguistic system of AFFECT does not constitute a blueprint for the development of a system of PARALINGUISTIC AFFECT, its features or oppositions; the systems in the two modalities are named differently to reflect this (as in PARALINGUISTIC ENGAGEMENT and PARALINGUISTIC GRADUATION). PARALINGUISTIC AFFECT models expressions of emotion in FACIAL AFFECT with features realised through muscle movement of the face, and in VOICE AFFECT with features realised through qualities of the voice.

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, here the authors model paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system. 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.

The Contradictions Of 'Different Degrees Of Concurrence'

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 93):

Each phase involves figures and entities that have different degrees of concurrence between language and paralanguage: some are realised only in language, some co-realised in language and paralanguage and some are realised only in paralanguage (see the discussion of mime in Chapter 7). We begin by exploring how entities are multimodally realised in the vlog and then move on to consider figures.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, by 'concurrence' the authors mean the realisation of the ideational meaning of language in the expression-only system of paralinguistic body language.

[2] To be clear, if ideational meaning is only realised in the expression system of language, there is no concurrence and no paralanguage.

[3] To be clear, if meanings are realised only in body language, then the meanings are not those of the text as an instance of language, so there is no concurrence, since the meanings of the text are not realised in the expression-only system of paralinguistic body language. That is, here the authors incongruously propose a realisation relation between the content potential of language and an expression instance of paralinguistic body language.

[4] To be clear, the discussion of mime in Chapter 7 is recycled from Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 22-6) and discusses the miming of protolinguistic body language. See the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Mime As Paralanguage.

Misrepresenting Protolinguistic Paralanguage As Evidence Against The Category [1]

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misrepresenting 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.

The Fundamental Misunderstanding Behind The Terms 'Sonovergent' And 'Semovergent'

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

See Table 2.4, based on Martin et al. (2013b), where the terms ‘sonovergent’ and ‘semovergent’ replace the terms ‘linguistic and ‘epilinguistic’ used in the original.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin et al. (2013b) is Martin, Zappavigna, Dwyer and Cléirigh, and the model of body language in that paper was created and developed by Cléirigh, alone. See, for example, Cléirigh's Original Notes (2009-10).

[2] To be clear, while the function of rebranding Cléirigh's linguistic and epilinguistic body language as the authors' sonovergent and semovergent paralanguage is to disguise the fact that the authors are using Cléirigh's model, the choice of these terms discloses serious misunderstandings of not just body language and Cléirigh's model, but of semiotic systems in general.

To explain, the minimum condition of semiosis is two levels of symbolic abstraction, variously labelled 'identifier' and 'identified' (Saussure), 'expression' and 'content' (Hjelmslev), 'form' and 'meaning' etc. The authors, however, misconstrue body language as expression only. It is this misunderstanding that leads them to model body language as 'para-' to language, since, without its own content plane, it must require another semiotic system, language, to provide its content.

It is this misconception of body language as an expression-only system 'alongside' language that motivates the notion of paralanguage 'converging' with language. When paralanguage expression converges with language expression, it is classified as 'sonovergent', and when it  converges with language content, it is classified as 'semovergent'.

This misconception of body language of an expression-only system led Martin and Zappavigna (2019: 26-8) — the original version of Chapter 1 in this volume — to the self-contradictory conclusion that paralanguage is an expression system of language itself, thereby undermining the notions of convergence and of paralanguage itself. See the clarifying critiques of this conclusion at The Argument That Paralanguage Is An Expression System Of Language and Paralanguage As Language Expression.

As a result of these multiple misunderstandings, the authors' 'sonovergent' and 'semovergent' paralanguage are not valid rebrandings of Cléirigh's 'linguistic' and 'epilinguistic' body language because each opposition of terms arises from different criteria. In Cléirigh's model, body language, like all semiotic systems, has both content and expression planes. What distinguishes the different types is not a convergence with language, but the type of semiotic system involved: protolinguistic, linguistic, or epilinguistic.

Linguistic body language is the use of the body to realise the same content as prosodic phonology by different means. As such, it is language, not paralanguage, and "sono-divergent", not 'sonovergent. Like prosodic phonology, it realises the grammatical systems of INFORMATION and KEY. As language, its content plane is stratified into semantics and lexicogrammar.

Epilinguistic body language is the use of the body to realise content made possible by the evolution and development of language, but unlike language, its content plane is not stratified into semantics and lexicogrammar.

Protolinguistic body language is the use of the body to realise content that does not require the evolution and development of language, and thus occurs in all social semiotic species. Again, unlike language, its content plane is not stratified into semantics and lexicogrammar. In this chapter, the authors will argue for excluding this type of body language from their model of paralanguage.

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.

Intermodal Convergence

 Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 20-1):

In their work on intermodal relations in children’s picture books (Painter and Martin, 2012; Painter et al., 2013), Painter and her colleagues suggest a model involving degrees of convergence between verbiage and image. The model is organised by metafunction – degrees of concurrence for ideational meaning, degrees of resonance for interpersonal meaning and degrees of synchronicity for textual meaning (for illustrative text analysis, see Martin 2008; Painter and Martin, 2012). The relevant terminology is presented in Table 1.3. 

Painter and her colleagues’ main concern in proposing this model was to focus on the way in which the meaning potential of written language and images was taken up in picture books – with language and image sometimes doing comparable work, and other times with language making meaning the images did not, or vice versa. … 

For Painter and her colleagues studying the complementary contribution of language and images in picture books means looking closely at the choices instantiated in a bimodal text in relation to those that could have been manifested and carefully considering the commitment of meaning by one modality or the other. This is the perspective we adopt in this monograph as far as the contribution of language and paralanguage to spoken discourse is concerned.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the notion of intermodal convergence is the simplistic idea that the instantiations in different semiotic modes of the one text can be described as 'same' or 'different'. The different terms for different metafunctions all express this one very simple idea.

[2] To be clear, in this monograph, the authors will take the perspective of categorising the instantiations of language and paralanguage as same ('convergent') or different.

It will be seen that the body language the authors rebrand as 'sonovergent paralanguage' actually diverges from the phonology and converges with the lexicogrammar that prosodic phonology realises: primarily the systems of KEY (interpersonal) and INFORMATION (textual). Moreover, in realising the grammar, sonovergent paralanguage is language, not paralanguage (Halliday 1989: 30), which is why the authors' intellectual source, Cléirigh, termed this use of postures and gestures linguistic. Again, this self-contradiction invalidates the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's model.

∞

See also the comments on Martin & Zappavigna (2019) The Notion Of Intermodal Convergence.

Discourse Semantics, Meaning Beyond the Clause, And Convergence

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 11-2):

We will briefly introduce six discourse semantic systems here, organised by metafunction as per Table 1.2.

For a detailed presentation of these systems, see Martin (1992), Martin and White (2005) and Martin and Rose ([2003] 2007); useful introductory overviews include Butler (2003), Martin (2009, 2014, 2015a, 2019) and Tann (2017). For each system we will note the diversification of grammatical systems realising discourse semantic ones, including where relevant what we will refer to as metaphorical realisations; and we will exemplify what we mean by co-textual relations between units of discourse that are not grammatically related to one another (i.e. meaning beyond the clause). As will be introduced later, in our model paralanguage converges with discourse semantic systems in language, not lexicogrammatical ones — IDEATION, APPRAISAL, IDENTIFICATION and PERIODICITY in particular.

Blogger Comments:

[1] For a detailed review of Martin (1992), see English Text: System And Structure. For a detailed review of Martin and Rose (2007), see Working With Discourse: Meaning Beyond The Clause.

[2] This misunderstands "cotextual relations". To be clear, what Martin means by 'meaning beyond the clause' is modelled in SFL Theory as lexicogrammatical cohesion (Halliday & Hasan 1976). It involves relations that are lexicogrammatical, but are not structural. In Martin (1992), these systems of cohesion are rebranded as Martin's systems of discourse semantics.

[3] Here yet 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] To be clear, this flatly contradicts the authors' definition of sonovergent paralanguage as 'phonologically convergent' (p22). Moreover, sonovergent paralanguage is neither sonovergent nor paralanguage. Sonovergent paralanguage is the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's linguistic body language, in which gestures serve the same function as prosodic phonology. That is, sonovergent paralanguage is language, not paralanguage, and it is divergent from phonology and convergent with the lexicogrammar that prosodic phonology realises, not with discourse semantic systems.