The Authors' General Model Of Sonovergent And Semovergent Systems

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 211):

Our expectation is that each new register will lead to reconsideration of the details of the specific paralinguistic systems proposed in Chapters 4, 5 and 6. We do hope on the other hand that our general model of sonovergent and semovergent systems will stand a longer test of time and prove a productive framework for exploring the contribution of gesture, body orientation, position and movement, facial expression, gaze and voice quality to face-to-face interaction. … As functional linguists, we have been sidelining paralanguage for far too long.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors' distinction between sonovergent and semovergent paralanguage is their rebranding of Cléirigh's distinction between linguistic and epilinguistic body language. As explained throughout, the authors' sonovergent paralanguage is language, not paralanguage. And as demonstrated throughout, the authors include protolinguistic body language in their semovergent paralanguage, despite the fact that this is a rebranding of body language that is only made possible by the prior evolution and development of language. Either of these misunderstandings, alone, invalidates the authors' model.

[2] Here again Martin justifies his work as the righting of a wrong. Cf. Martin & Doran (2023: 44):

Structure markers make important contributions to the realisation of systemic options in many languages… . Our goal here has been to suggest a way forward for grammarians disposed towards granting these structural orphans a home.

The sentiment might be summarised as "Make Paralanguage Great Again".

Drawing, Music And Dance As Creolised Paralanguage And The Authors' Model Of Intermodality

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 210):

In the interest of balance, one might up the ante here. How many modalities other than language can be conceived as creolised paralanguage? Is paralanguage drawing in the air or turning this around – is drawing or painting actually inscribed ideational paralanguage? Would analysis of concert conducting be a useful stepping stone for imagining music as creolised interpersonal and textual paralanguage? Is dance creolised paralanguage along similar lines? 

As flagged in Section 7.2, in an era when presentations on multimodality so often ignore language (for fear of ‘logocentrism’) and regularly focus on one modality other than language rather than intermodality, these seem usefully challenging questions to pose.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, the hypothesis of 'creolised paralanguage' postulates that people who do not share a common paralanguage come together and create a simplified pidgin paralanguage, which then becomes the native paralanguage of a once paralinguistically diverse community.

[2] To be clear, the authors have just conceived language that is signed as creolised paralanguage, but not language that is spoken. Here they give the impression of not regarding Sign as language.

[3] Here the authors are taking credit for an observation made by Matthiessen fifteen years earlier, as quoted in the notes on Cléirigh's model that the authors are working from:

The kinological systems are analogous to the articulatory systems of phonology, though they realise meaning rather than wording, and include gestures that involve drawing in the air — ‘where drawing and gesturing merge’ (Matthiessen 2007: 8).

[4] To be clear, the notion of music as creolised paralanguage would postulate that people who do not share a common music come together and create a simplified pidgin music, which then becomes the native music of a once music-diverse community.

[5] To be clear, the notion of dance as creolised paralanguage would postulate that people who do not share a common dance come together and create a simplified pidgin dance, which then becomes the native dance of a once dance-diverse community.

[6] Here the authors are congratulating themselves for doing what others do not do: modelling intermodality, the relations between instances of different semiotic systems. However, it may be instructive to consider just how the authors' model it.

To be clear, the authors model intermodality in terms of convergence. All that means is that the two modes are similar or different, and the authors are not much interested in difference, which is where a rich range of types of relations potentially lies. That is, all the different terms they use for convergence:

• sonovergence
• semovergence
• concurrence
• resonance
• synchronicity

disguise the fact that they merely label the relation between modes as one of similarity. That's all.

[7] Responding to these challenging questions is perhaps more instructive than the questions are useful.

Misunderstanding Emblems As An Expression Form Of Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 203, 204):

In reviewing our proposals for sonovergent and semovergent systems, it is important to keep in mind that we are treating emblems as part of the expression form of language and not as paralanguage (Figure 7.4) – and thus excluded thumbs-up or thumbs-down (as praise or censure), index finger touching lips (for ‘quiet please’), hand cupped over ear (for ‘I can’t hear’) and so on from our description. Our reasoning was presented in Chapter 1, Section 1.6. This was the basis of our argument that semovergent paralanguage cannot be used to support NEGOTIATION by distinguishing move types in dialogic exchanges (although sonovergent paralanguage can of course support tone choice in relation to these moves).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, emblems involve both content and expression, and so are not merely an expression form. Moreover, they are not language because their content plane is not stratified into semantics and grammar. Instead, the use emblems requires the prior evolution and development of language, as demonstrated by the fact that other species do not use them, and so are classified as 'epilinguistic' in Cléirigh's model, which does indeed make them 'semovergent' in the authors' model. See also the previous post: Emblems As Language Expressions.

[2] Figure 7.4 misrepresents all language content as 'form'. To be clear, the only form on the content plane is the formal constituency of grammar: clause, phrase, group, word, morpheme.

[3] See the previous post: The Argument That 'Emblems' Are Part Of Language.

[4] To be clear, the authors (p202) have themselves presented an instance of a move type, a gestured command, but failed to recognise it as a SPEECH FUNCTION:

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

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.

The Circular Reasoning Underlying 'Semovergence Implies Sonovergence'

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 200):

It is probably fair to say that when semovergent paralanguage is deployed, it will almost always be coordinated with TONALITY, TONICITY and RHYTHM; this argues that semovergence implies sonovergence. Sonovergent paralanguage on the other hand can be deployed without semovergence, through gestures and body movement in tune with or in sync with prosodic phonology (but no more).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is an example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning known as begging the question' (petitio principii), because the argument's premiss assumes the conclusion instead of supporting it. 

Premiss: semovergent paralanguage is co-ordinated with textual phonology

Conclusion: semovergent paralanguage is co-ordinated with textual phonology (= sonovergent)

[2] To be clear, this is because language ("sonovergent paralanguage") can be deployed without body language ("semovergent paralanguage").

Blatantly Claiming Credit For Cléirigh's Work

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 199):

We used metafunction to distinguish between paralanguage systems converging with ideational, interpersonal or textual meaning (Figure 7.3).

Seen in these terms, sonovergent paralanguage resonates with interpersonal meaning and syncs with textual meaning; there is no sonovergent concurrence with ideational meaning. Semovergent paralanguage on the other hand resonates with interpersonal meaning, coordinates with textual meaning and concurs with ideational meaning.

Blogger Comments:

This is very misleading indeed, because these distinctions were already present in Cléirigh's model, below, and were not the work of the authors. The plagiarism in this work is more blatant when Martin is the author, as in this chapter.

Linguistic ("sonovergent"):

Epilinguistic ("semovergent"):

Importantly, "sonovergent paralanguage" is the linguistic realisation of grammatical systems, and "semovergent paralanguage", being epilinguistic, has no grammar, but has meaning that derives from the fact that its users have a grammar.

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.

What The Authors Say They Did vs What The Authors Actually Did

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 198, 199, 240n):

We then moved to build a general model of paralanguage, drawing on the concept of stratification (levels of abstraction) and metafunction (kinds of meaning) in systemic functional linguistics (SFL) theory.¹ We used stratification to distinguish between paralanguage that converges with the prosodic phonology (intonation and rhythm) of spoken language and paralanguage that converges with its discourse semantics (IDEATION, APPRAISAL, IDENTIFICATION and PERIODICITY) – sonovergent versus semovergent paralanguage, respectively (Figure 7.2).

¹ In this respect our model contrasts with the syntax, semantics and pragmatics framework assumed in most related studies. We do not oppose form to meaning (syntax vs semantics); and we do not conflate resources enacting social relations with those composing information flow (as pragmatics).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading indeed. The authors actually began with Cléirigh's general model of body language that was already organised in terms of stratification and metafunction. The plagiarism in this book is effected through myriad small steps.

[2] To be clear, what the authors actually did was rebrand Cléirigh's 'linguistic' body language as 'sonovergent' paralanguage and Cléirigh's 'epilinguistic' body language as 'semovergent' paralanguage. This created many of the inconsistencies that invalidate the authors' entire model of paralanguage. To explain:

The distinction in Cléirigh's model is between body language that functions as protolanguage ('protolinguistic'), body language that functions as language ('linguistic'), and body language made possible by the evolution and development of language ('epilinguistic'). That is, the types are distinguished in terms of semogenesis: phylogenesis and ontogenesis.

Despite semogenesis being the criterion for these types, the authors renamed the types as if they differed in terms of the linguistic strata they converged with. This generated many confusions. The notion of convergence arose in the first place because the authors misunderstood paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system. This led two of the authors, Martin & Zappavigna (2019), to conclude that paralanguage is an expression system of language — evidence here — thereby invalidating the notion of convergence. 

In this publication, the misunderstanding of paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system persists in Chapter 1 and Chapter 4 (ideational semovergent paralanguage). In contrast, Chapter 5 (interpersonal semovergent paralanguage) and Chapter 6 (textual semovergent paralanguage) understand paralanguage as both content and expression, thereby making the notion of 'semovergence' with language redundant.

And as previously observed, because 'sonovergent paralanguage' serves the same functions as prosodic phonology, it is language, not paralanguage, and so realises grammatical systems (INFORMATION and KEY) rather than "converging" with vocal tract systems.

[3] This is a serious misunderstanding of SFL Theory. Of course SFL opposes 'form to meaning': phonology is form, semantics is meaning, and lexicogrammar is form interpreted in terms of its function in realising meaning.

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 Hyper-New

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 193-4):

The hyper-New in (26) is preceded by two silent beats and begins with the internal causal connector so. The news of preceding tone groups (i.e. that most of the glucose, vitamins and amino acids and lots of water are back in the bloodstream) is distilled by declaring that by now we have a dilute material with not a lot of good stuff in it.

Prior to the commencement of the hyper-New the lecturer has completed a full circuit of the lecturing space, arriving at the left edge of the central desk (as depicted in Figure 6.8). 

He sustains this central position, moving behind the desk and around its right edge as he delivers the hyper-New. Note that this is the same central position from which he launched the macro-Theme. 

In effect what the body movement does here is more than culminate what has been presented. It affirms the authority of the lecturer’s declaration by positioning him at the ‘control centre’ of the meanings in play (e.g. Lim et al., 2012).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'hyper-New' is Martin's rebranding of the 'Paragraph Summary' of writing pedagogy as linguistic theory. As linguistic theory, hyper-New, like hyper-Theme and macro-Theme, is a function without a structure: there is no 'hyper-Given'.

[2] To be clear, here the authors are merely describing how the lecturer moves while delivering this part of his lecture. Any final position of the lecturer is simply his location when he ceases talking. Merely occupying a space does not highlight what is being said. And what is last said need not be a "hyper-New". That is, no realisation relation has been established between "hyper-New" and body location: a body location does not specify a "hyper-New" and a "hyper-New" does not specify a body location.

[3] Note, then, that this location of the lecturer makes no distinction between hyper-New from macro-Theme.

[4] In effect, by this reasoning, the lecturer undermines his authority when he is not at his desk, as when he expresses his "hyper-Theme" and "macro-Theme".

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.

Taking Steps To Realise Marked New

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

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

Misrepresenting Sonovergence As Semovergence

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 188):

In this instance, as shown in (19''), each of the lecturer’s hand beats syncs sonovergently with a tonic syllable, in just those cases where the tonic falls on one of the named nutrients in the phase / glucose, / vitamins, a- / mino / acids or / water. At the same time each of these named nutrients is given prominence as the Theme of a clause (see (19)). The lecturer’s hand beat thus reinforces informational prominence both sonovergently and semovergently. From a discourse semantic perspective, in (19'') we have a sequence of four state figures, each construed by the same (relational circumstantial) grammatical structure – most of the [X] / lots of [X] is back in the bloodstream.

 

 

Blogger Comments:

Here the authors misrepresent their own model. The hand beat functions only "sonovergently", not "semovergently", because it converges with the phonology of language, not with the content of language. The hand beat realises the information Focus, not the Theme. It is just that, in these instances, it is the Theme (and Carrier) that is the information Focus.

Importantly, the rhetorical function of this misrepresentation is to forge a misleading link between "sonovergent" paralanguage and the hyper-Theme and macro-Theme of "semovergent" PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY. This is demonstrated by the fact that the authors only cite the Theme function of these nominal groups, even though their Carrier function is also given prominence.

Interpersonal Semovergence Co-instantiated With Textual Sonovergence

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 183, 184):

Interpersonal meaning is additionally co-instantiated in the orientation of the hand. In images 1 and 5 of (17'') the supine (open) orientation of the hand beats invites negotiation of the relevant propositions. More technically it enacts heteroglossic expansion as opening space for negotiation (see Chapter 5; Martin and White, 2005; Hao and Hood, 2019). The alternative, a prone hand with a downward orientation of the palm, would have enacted heteroglossic contraction, closing down space for negotiation. These variations are illustrative of the way textual meaning in both language and paralanguage coordinates ideational and interpersonal prominence in unfolding discourse.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the orientation of the hand to realise heteroglossic ENGAGEMENT is semovergent paralanguage, in the authors' terms, whereas the beating of the hand is sonovergent paralanguage, so here the "co-instantiation" is of different types of paralanguage, each of which is differently convergent with language. On Cléirigh's original model, the function of the hand orientation is epilinguistic (made possible by language), whereas the function of the hand beating is linguistic (language).

[2] To be clear, because the beating of the hands is linguistic (systematically related to the grammar), not paralinguistic (not systematically related to the grammar), these examples illustrate the use of language to give textual prominence to the meanings of language.

Problems With The Authors' Analysis Of Hand Shape

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

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Crediting Martin With The Ideas Of Others

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 179):

In this section we introduce two additional paralinguistic systems – PARALINGUISTIC RHYTHM and PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY. PARALINGUISTIC RHYTHM deals with the sonovergent synchronicity of paralanguage with waves of sound in the prosodic phonology of speech. PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY deals with the semovergent coordination of paralanguage with waves of information in unfolding discourse. The metaphor of ‘waves’ references the peaks and troughs of textual prominence as texts unfold (Martin, 1992; Martin and Rose, [2003] 2007: 189).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the rhythm of body language serves the same function as the rhythm of speech, just through different body parts. Because of this, it is language, not paralanguage, which why it is termed 'linguistic' body language in Cléirigh's model. Consequently, because it is not paralanguage, it is also not 'sonovergent'.

[2] This is misleading because it misrepresents the source of these ideas as Martin ± Rose. In truth, Halliday (1985: 169) draws on Pike's (1959) triad of 'language as particle, wave and field’:

The textual meaning of the clause is expressed by what is put first (the Theme); by what is phonologically prominent (and tends to be put last – the New, signalled by information focus); and by conjunctions and relatives which if present must occur in initial position. Thus it forms a wave-like pattern of periodicity that is set up by peaks of prominence and boundary markers.

Misleading Claims About The Model Of Paralinguistic Deixis

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 178-9):

The discussion of textual semovergence to this point explores the cooperation of language and paralanguage as they keep track of people, things and places in the flow of discourse. PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS is realised through an embodied vector which directs a viewer’s gaze to either [actual] or [virtual] phenomena. … As vectors, the expressions of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS direct students’ gaze, and thus their attention, to particular [actual] and [virtual] phenomena.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. As the review of this chapter has so far demonstrated, the authors have not illustrated that body language "keeps track" of 'people, things and places in the flow of discourse'. This is merely Martin's characterisation of his system of IDENTIFICATION. Interestingly, the body language data included instances of endophoric reference, which functions cohesively within body language, but the authors don't recognise the distinction between exophoric and endophoric reference in their system of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS.

Moreover, as has also been demonstrated, the authors' system of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS is not a system of DEIXIS, because it does not make distinctions by reference to the here-&-now of the gesturer.

[2] To be clear, such a gesture would not signal that an identity is recoverable, and so would not serve a reference (identification) function. However, it was demonstrated that the DEIXIS feature 'virtual' only arises from the authors' misunderstandings. For example, of the' first two instances of virtual DEIXIS, the gesture in the first was not deictic in function, and the gesture in the second was not "unresolved".

Problems With The Authors' Analysis Of The Interaction Of Paralinguistic Deixis And Graduation

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 177-8):

The potential for a deictic gesture to be expressed simultaneously with one or more gestural realisations from other paralinguistic systems was noted in the introduction to this chapter. This is further exemplified in (16) where we zero in once again on the example discussed as (8) and (15) earlier.

In (16) the focus of attention is the deictic gesture realising [virtual:location]. In this instance the realisation of [home] converges with the verbal expression of time – today. The pinching of the thumb and index finger in image 1 selects [narrow] from the SCOPE system – but simultaneously expresses interpersonal semovergence in selecting [sharpen] in PARALINGUISTIC FOCUS (see Figure 5.14 on PARALINGUISTIC GRADUATION; Hao and Hood, 2019). Interpersonally the expression flags maximum exactitude or precision, in this instance flagging definitiveness in relation to the claim you told me today.

Upscaled PARALINGUISTIC FORCE is also enacted through the marked muscle tension involved in the pinching point in image 1 in (16) and a forceful long downward trajectory of forearm and hand indicated by the arrow in image 2 in (16). Here the systems of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS and PARALINGUISTIC GRADUATION interact to invoke the significance of the claim.

Blogger Comments:

[1] See the previous post. The gesture makes reference to a spatial location symbolising a temporal location, and 'narrow' is a feature of the expression (hand shape) not the content ("deixis").

[2] To be clear, 'sharp' describes the hand shape (expression), not its function (content). The claim that the finger pointing graduates an appraisal in terms of exactitude, precision or definitiveness is a bare assertion unsupported by evidence (the ipse dixit fallacy). Moreover, if the meaning to be recovered is 'today', then there is no appraisal made by the gesture, and so no graduation of an appraisal.

If, on the other hand, the gesture is interpreted as making reference to the addressee in the speaker's quoted text, then it could be interpreted as an accusatory JUDGEMENT. But this is not the authors' interpretation.

[3] To be clear, as the authors have previously acknowledged, the forceful downward beat coincides with the tonic prominence on today, which highlights it as the Focus of New information. That is, the beat of the gesture functions linguistically ("sonovergently") and textually ('significance'), not epilinguistically ("semovergently") and interpersonally (graduated appraisal).

Problems With The Authors' Scope And Demarcation Analysis

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 176-7):

In example (15) the PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS identifies time as [virtual:location] and selects for both SCOPE and DEMARCATION. 

In image 1 in (15), the ‘pinch’ point of left thumb and index finger selects for SCOPE as [narrow], as does the left index finger point in image 2. Both these vectors contrast with the right-hand vector in image 2 where an open palm with spread fingers and thumb configures SCOPE as relatively [broad]. The narrow pinch point in image 1 syncs sonovergently with today and semovergently with the meaning of the narrowly defined time reference. The relatively broad righthand point in image 2 syncs sonovergently with future and semovergently with the relatively open time reference. 

The PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS in (15) also selects for DEMARCATION as [delineation]. In the second image, the left index finger extends outwards from the body, sustaining its semovergence with today. The left index finger delineates a boundary line, a [virtual:location] from which time stretches into the future, the [virtual:location] identified to the right. Our data suggest that the selection of [virtual:semiotic], whether [prospective] or [retrospective], does not select for either relative SCOPE or DEMARCATION.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, this is an example of using body language to make endophoric reference, with the left-right dimension of interpersonal space ideationally construing the past-future dimension of interpersonal time, and the pointing gesture signalling that the meanings 'present' and 'future' are recoverable from those construals by body language. Again, the vector is "resolved" and so the "deixis" is not virtual.

[2] To be be clear, selecting features from systems is the process of instantiation, and it is not a (more inclusive) system that does the selecting.

[3] To be clear, gestures don't instantiate ('select') content plane features, they realise them. That is, the authors here confuse interstratal realisation with system instantiation.

[4] To be clear, it is the expression (hand shape) that is broad or narrow, not the content. As previously explained, on the authors' model, this hand shape realises the ENGAGEMENT feature 'expansion'.

[5] To be clear, the timing of the gesture is linguistic and textual, because, like the tonic, it realises the focus of New information, in this case: today and future.

[6] To be clear, the gesture points to a spatial location that symbolises a temporal location. Any location can be construed as a boundary between other locations, but there is no evidence here that the gesture construes the location as a boundary. This is a case of making the data fit the theory instead of using the theory to account for the data.