Misrepresenting Matthiessen As Endorsing Martin's Misunderstanding Of Register

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 207-8):

Modelling concurrence and resonance is more of a challenge. One response would be to quantify the semantic ‘weight’ of the contributions from alternative modalities in terms of degrees of commitment – where commitment refers, following Martin (2010), to the number of optional systems taken up and the degree of delicacy of selections from both optional and obligatory systems. Figueredo and Figueredo (2019) outline a quantitative model for measurements of this kind. This would offer us a gauge of how much meaning language and paralanguage were committing but not tell us much about the kinds of meaning involved. 

Another response, perhaps better suited to this shortcoming, would be to turn to a higher-order semiotic such as register (Matthiessen, 2007) or genre (Bateman, 2008) and assign it responsibility for the distribution of meaning across modalities. Models of this kind take advantage of work on the relation of hierarchically organised categories in language (i.e. system realised in structure, higher ranks realised by lower ones and more abstract strata realised through more concrete ones) to explore intermodality – in effect treating co-instantiation across modalities as if it were realisation within a modality.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, Martin's notion of 'commitment' is invalidated by the fact that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the system network, namely: that a speaker can choose the degree of delicacy to be instantiated during logogenesis. That is, Martin misconstrues what the linguist can do — decide on the degree of delicacy "pursued" in analysing a text — as what a speaker can do. But Martin also confuses 'delicacy' in the technical sense of a scale of decreasing generality in system networks with 'delicacy' in the sense of a scale of decreasing generality in a hyponymic taxonomy experiential meanings. See the earlier post Why Martin's Notion Of Commitment Is Invalid.

[2] This is very misleading indeed, because it knowingly misrepresents Matthiessen as supporting Martin's misunderstanding of register as a higher-order semiotic. Matthiessen, of course, follows Halliday in modelling register as a language variation (instantiation), not as a system more abstract than language (stratification).

[3] This confuses constituency (rank scale) with symbolic abstraction (realisation). All ranks are of the same level of symbolic abstraction, so a higher rank is not realised by a lower rank.

[4] To be clear, here the authors advocate making the same type of theoretical error that Martin made in his misunderstanding of register. With register, Martin modelled different types of language in terms of a more abstract stratum, and here he proposes modelling different types of semiotic system in terms of a more abstract stratum.

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).

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.

Misrepresenting Halliday On Theme

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 181-2):

As outlined by Halliday (1967, 1970a), English grammar and phonology structure textual meaning as waves of information. One peak of prominence is realised grammatically through Theme at the beginning of an English clause. It functions as the point of departure for the message by encoding an angle on the field. A complementary peak of prominence, termed New, is realised phonologically in the unmarked case through the major pitch movement on the final salient syllable of a tone group – its Tonic segment (Halliday, 1970a; Martin and Rose, [2003] 2007: 189–92). A secondary peak of informational prominence is realised through a salient syllable, which in SFL notation begins each foot. As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.6, a salient syllable can be made super-salient where there is a significant jump in pitch, usually upwards, which does not involve a choice of tone. Super-salience is indicated via a vertical arrow, ‘↑’, before the syllable.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the notion of the textual meaning of a clause as a wave of prominence is first set out in Halliday (1985: 169).

[2] To be clear, the Theme functions as the point of departure for the clause as message. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 89):

The Theme is the element that serves as the point of departure of the message; it is that which locates and orients the clause within its context. The speaker chooses the Theme as his or her point of departure to guide the addressee in developing an interpretation of the message; by making part of the message prominent as Theme, the speaker enables the addressee to process the message.

Field, on the other hand, is the ideational dimension of context — two strata above lexicogrammar — which Martin (1992) misunderstands as register.

[3] To be clear, the New is peak of prominence of the information unit, which may or may not be co-extensive with the clause.

[4] This is misleading, because it credits Martin and Rose with theorising that is entirely Halliday's.

[5] To be clear, a salient syllable is a peak of phonological (rhythmic), not informational prominence. Here the authors confuse expression with content. Each salient syllable that is non-tonic realises what was not selected as the Focus of New information.

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.

Problems With The Deixis Feature 'Tracing'

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

The feature [tracing] is realised through a dynamic vector which identifies a part or quality (e.g. shape) of an entity through movement. In (14), a biochemistry lecturer is describing the structure of a water molecule. He traces with his index finger a 90° angle on a projected image of the atoms which compose a water molecule. The tracing motion is shown in arrows in the three sequential images as his index finger moves from right to left and then down. This movement is retraced multiple times in sync with the duration of underlined wordings. The retracing is interrupted in sync with the verbal reset (I’m sorry).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the feature 'tracing' is not deictic, because it does not make distinctions by reference to the here-&-now of the speaker/gesturer. Moreover, it is not a feature of the content plane, since like its realisation statement 'insert motion', it characterises the expression that realises content.

[2] To be clear, this gesturing makes a sequence of references that are exophoric to paralanguage. The efficacy of this type of body language diminishes rapidly with distance between the gesture and the referent.

Problems With The System Of Paralinguistic Power

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 150-1):

Social relations of relative POWER in images relate to the vertical angle of viewing in Kress and van Leeuwen (2006). In Painter et al. (2013) it relates to the vertical positioning of one character’s body in relation to another. In van Leeuwen (1999), POWER is also discussed as an aspect of interpersonal meaning afforded by the voice; the higher in pitch and the louder the voice is, the more dominant the speaker. The system of PARALINGUISTIC POWER in Figure 5.17 opposes features of equal and unequal on a cline and realised through the vertical positioning of bodies in relation to each other. The features of relative pitch and loudness are not identified as realisations in Figure 5.17.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the claim here is that the loud, high-pitched cry of a depicted child is dominant, whereas the soft, low pitch of the depicted child's adult male teacher is subordinated. This is also indirectly at odds with the fact that female newsreaders are trained to lower the pitch of their voice in presenting authoritative stories of events.

[2] To be clear, the claim here is that a depicted head of a tall person is dominant, whereas a depicted head of a short person is subordinated, and a depicted teacher and student of the same height are equal in power.

[3] On the contrary.

[4] Like previous systems in this chapter, the system in Figure 5.17 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.

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.

A Problem With The System Of Paralinguistic Graduation (Body)

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 145):

The system of PARALINGUISTIC GRADUATION (body) (Hood and Zhang, 2020) is shown in Figure 5.14.

Blogger Comments:

The system in Figure 5.14 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 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' 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.

Why Facial Affect Is More Limited Than Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 121):

As noted earlier, ATTITUDE in language can be expressed through systems of AFFECT, APPRECIATION or JUDGEMENT while paralinguistic expressions of ATTITUDE are restricted to FACIAL AFFECT (see, e.g. Tian, 2011). This means that the paralinguistic meaning potential for expressing emotion is relatively limited with respect to language. 

For example, an array of finely distinguished lexical instantiations of the feature [realis: happiness; mood; positive] (Table 5.1) are possible, as, for instance, in happy/joyful/delighted/thrilled and so on, such fine distinctions are not available in FACIAL AFFECT. 

In analyses of intermodal resonance in Coraline, fine distinctions in verbal instances (e.g. happy vs joyful) may be inferred for resonant facial expressions but cannot be attributed to specific variations in the facial expression. In other words a given expression of FACIAL AFFECT might couple with a diverse array of lexical realisations of [realis: happiness; mood; positive].

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this relative limitation with respect to language is simply explained by the fact that the facial expression of emotion is a protolinguistic semiotic system, which means it lacks a grammatical stratum.

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.

Why All The Authors' Ideational Semovergent Systems Are Invalid

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 112-3):

This chapter has described how semovergent systems construe ideational meaning and has explored entities and figures as resources for embodied ideational meaning across language and paralanguage. These systems have been formalised in system networks that can be used by an analyst as they consider how gestures interact through a relationship of concurrence or divergence with the ideational meanings made in spoken discourse. …

A robust analytical framework for investigating ideational meaning offers a key resource for understanding human experience in social life. The ideational paralinguistic systems presented in this chapter have important potential in applied linguistics where adopting a multimodal approach to studying communication involving multiple modalities is becoming increasingly important. … We look forward to seeing how the systems explored in this chapter are taken up in disciplines such as the humanities and in studies of different semiotic modes (including face-to-face communication and communication in digital environments).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, the authors' notion of semovergent systems, where gestures realise ("interact through a relationship of concurrence") the ideational meanings of language, derives from their misunderstanding of paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system.

[2] As previously observed, all eight of the system networks in this chapter confuse discourse semantics with expression plane systems and features.

[3] As the review of this chapter has demonstrated, the framework presented here is not even theoretically valid, let alone "robust".

Confusing Discourse Semantics And Expression In A System Network [6]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 109-10):

The final two dimensions to consider when analysing an occurrence figure are flow and direction – as outlined in Figure 4.7.

 Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the authors' notion of an 'occurrence figure' confuses discourse semantics (figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. The system network in Figure 4.7 further demonstrates this confusion by presenting a discourse semantic network (occurrence figure) with expression plane systems of gestural motion (FLOW, DIRECTION).

Confusing Discourse Semantics And Expression In A System Network [5]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 107-8):

Another dimension of occurrence figures has to do with whether or not they incorporate gestures that repeat – [iterated] versus [isolated], and if so, in what manner – [ordered] versus [unordered], and if [ordered], then [to-and-fro] or [stepped]. These options are outlined in Figure 4.6.

 Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the authors' notion of an 'occurrence figure' confuses discourse semantics (figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. The system network in Figure 4.6 further demonstrates this confusion by presenting a discourse semantic network (occurrence figure) with the expression plane features (iterated, ordered, to-and-fro, stepped, unordered, isolated) of an expression plane system of gestural motion (RECURRENCE).

Confusing Discourse Semantics And Expression In A System Network [4]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 104, 105):

Where an entity is present in the paralinguistic realisation of an occurrence figure this entity may change, [transformative] versus [non-transformative] in either size, [increase] versus [decrease] or [shape]. These options are outlined in Figure 4.5. If it remains a constant size or shape, it may impact another entity in the gestural space, [impacting] versus [non-impacting].

 Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the terms 'paralinguistic entity' and 'paralinguistic figure' confuse discourse semantics (entity, figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. The system network in Figure 4.5 further demonstrates this confusion by presenting a discourse semantic network (entitied occurrence figure) with both discourse semantic features (entitied, non-entitied) and expression plane features (transformative, size, increase, decrease, shape, non-transformative, impacting, non-impacting).

Moreover, realisation statements like 'insert entity' specify a constraint on structural configuration — cf. insert Agent — but no structural configuration for occurrence figures has been identified.

Confusing Discourse Semantics And Expression In A System Network [3]

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 104, 105):

Paralinguistic occurrence figures incorporate motion to construe a happening or activity. Unlike paralinguistic state figures which always visually incorporate a paralinguistic entity, a paralinguistic occurrence figure can occur both with or without committing a definable entity. There are three other dimensions along which such figures vary: whether or not the motion repeats (iterated/isolated), the speed of the motion (constant/adjusted) and the direction of the motion (omni/linear) – as shown in the system network in Figure 4.4.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, the terms 'paralinguistic entity' and 'paralinguistic figure' confuse discourse semantics (entity, figure) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. The system network in Figure 4.4 further demonstrates this confusion by presenting a discourse semantic network (occurrence figure) with expression plane systems of gestural motion (RECURRENCE, FLOW, DIRECTION).

[2] To be clear, this use of 'committing' misunderstands the authors' own notion of commitment. The authors' notion of commitment is misunderstood as the degree of delicacy selected in the process of instantiation. Here the term is used, not for delicacy, but for the relation between a figure and one of its constituents (entity).