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

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Why The Model Of Paralinguistic Periodicity Is Invalid

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Some Problems With Paralinguistic 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.

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 'Deictic' Systems Of Range: Scope And Demarcation

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 173, 169):

To the partial system network of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS presented in Figure 6.2 we now add a simultaneous system of RANGE in Figure 6.3. …

RANGE itself involves choices in two simultaneous systems, SCOPE and DEMARCATION. SCOPE concerns the relative mass (volume or quantity) of phenomena identified in an expression of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS. The slanted square bracket indicates a graded (rather than an either/or) system – a pointing gesture can be relatively [narrow] or [broad] in SCOPE.

The selection of SCOPE as relatively [narrow] or [broad] can support the identification of the quantity or volume of entities encompassed in a deictic gesture – for example, as a single entity among others or as an entire group of entities.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained for Figure 6.2, the upper network 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).

Of the extensions to Figure 6.2 in Figure 6.3, the system of SCOPE is also not a system of DEIXIS, but a classification of referents — their scope — in the environment of body language (see also the following post). On the other hand, the system of DEMARCATION is not a system of DEIXIS, because deixis is concerned with distinctions in relation to the speaker, whereas demarcation is not. And the feature 'tracing' is said to be realised by the insertion (+) of motion into some unacknowledged structure.

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).

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.

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.

The Phonological System Of Rhythm

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 25):

The phonological system of RHYTHM is realised in English through the timing of the salient syllables beginning each foot (relatively equal timing between salient syllables in a stress-timed language like English). In (60), the vlogger beats with her hands in time with the salient syllables of the feet / not /, / find the / and / hair dye that I /. The last of these beats in fact syncs with the tonic syllable hair.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Not Recognising The Function Of Gestural Rhythm.

To be clear, the authors here do not identify the function of the rhythm of these gestures (but see the following post).  In the authors' source, Cléirigh's model of linguistic body language, the rhythm serves the same function as the rhythm of speech in Halliday's theory.  That is, the beats identify the potential tonics, those that speaker chose not to instantiate (select); so in terms of the grammar, they realise the potential foci of New information, those that speaker chose not to instantiate (select).

Periodicity

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 17):

PERIODICITY comprises resources for composing text as waves of information. The basic idea here is that there is a hierarchy of periodicity, extending from the small wavelengths of tone group and clause up through an indefinite number of indefinitely long phases of discourse. In the example that follows we have a topic sentence introducing what has been happening to the vlogger in parking lots and a retrospective comment on the frequency of this annoying behaviour. A wide range of resources, including text reference (in bold) and generalised ideation (in italics), along with internal conjunction and ideational grammatical metaphor in more abstract registers, cooperate with one another to scaffold information flow along these lines.

(55)

Oh another thing that has been really annoying this summer is 

you know when you go to a parking lot and it’s a busy place. You get in your car and you – you don’t necessarily want to leave immediately. Like you might wanna – I might want to have Henry test his blood sugar, give the kids snacks. Or if we were at the pool, like change or look at my phone or send a text message or whatever. It drives me crazy when a car is like sitting there following you through the parking lot and then they just wait for you to leave. I cannot stand that.

And that has happened so many times.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, PERIODICITY is a discourse semantic system incongruously named after a type of structure instead of a type of meaning. More importantly, it is writing pedagogy misrepresented as linguistic theory, in which

• introductory paragraph is rebranded as macro-Theme,
• topic sentence is rebranded as hyper-Theme (a misunderstanding of Daneš 1974),
• paragraph summary is rebranded as hyper-New, and
• text summary is rebranded as macro-New.

Moreover, its structures are not relations, but single functions. That is:

• macro-Theme does not relate to a macro-Rheme
• hyper-Theme does not relate to a hyper-Rheme
• hyper-New does not relate to a hyper-Given
• macro-New does not relate to a macro-Given.

[2] To be clear, waves in phonology, lexicogrammar and semantics are of different levels of symbolic abstraction. Here that difference is ignored, as if all waves can be compared at the same level.

[3] To be clear, the claim that text reference, "generalised ideation", internal conjunction and ideational grammatical metaphor "scaffold" this type information flow is a bare assertion without supporting evidence: the logical fallacy known as ipse dixit.

Appraisal: Lexicogrammatical Diversification

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 15):

APPRAISAL comprises resources for enacting social relations by sharing attitudes (Martin and White 2005). In terms of diversification it allows us, for example, to realise affect across a range of grammatical structures:

(43) Regrettably she left the parking lot.
(44) She regretfully left the parking lot.
(45) She’s regretful because she left the parking lot.
(46) Our regretful vlogger swore not to do it again.
(47) She regretted her behaviour.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, for Halliday (2008: 49, 179), the system of APPRAISAL is a lexicogrammatical system that shades the borderline between grammar and lexis, within which ATTITUDE is a grammatical system realised by the selection of lexical items:

With options in the way something is evaluated (“I approve / I disapprove”), or contended (“I agree / I disagree”), the borderline between grammar and lexis is shaded over; systems of APPRAISAL, as described by Martin & White (2005), represent more delicate (more highly differentiated) options within the general region of evaluation. … [ATTITUDE] is a grammatical system that is realised by a selection of lexical items. 

This is borne out by the authors' examples, which show AFFECT realised by lexical items in different grammatical structures.

Connexion: Meaning Beyond The Clause

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 14):

In terms of meaning beyond the clause CONNEXION allows us to connect indefinitely long phases of discourse to one another (viz. the long explanation of why subscribers are watching a random chatty vlog rather than a prepared video below):

(32)

Hi everybody it is August first and I’m going to do just a random chatty vlog for you guys.

⇓ (implicit cause)

I had a video for today. I filmed it and I was going to edit it. It was a type one Tuesday. I was showing all the diabetes supplies — like the extra supplies we brought on vacation but I had bent down like before I started filming and my shirt got caught in my bra so it was like sitting — it just — it’s all I could see the whole time so I was like ‘I’m not posting this video ’cause that’s all people would be looking at.’

⇑ (explicit cause)

So this is what you get today.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the 'cause: result' relation in this text is expressed first structurally, and so is not "meaning beyond the clause", and then cohesively, through the textual grammatical system of CONJUNCTION (Halliday & Hasan 1976), which Martin rebrands as his logical discourse semantic system of CONNEXION.

Connexion: Lexicogrammatical Diversification

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 13-4):

CONNEXION comprises resources for relating discourse semantic figures (both occurrence figures and state figures) to one another in sequences (via additive, comparative, temporal and causal relations). In terms of lexicogrammatical diversification it allows us to connect figures to one another in a variety of ways:

(26) Due to him harassing her, she left the parking lot.

(27) Because he was harassing her, she left the parking lot.

(28) He harassed her, so she left the parking lot.

(29) He harassed her. Consequently she left the parking lot.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the use of the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999) makes the use of Martin's CONNEXION redundant, since the former subsumes the latter by relating figures in sequences.

[2] To be clear, the reason why Martin's CONNEXION is only concerned with these particular expansion relations is because that was the state of development of Halliday's model of textual cohesive conjunction in Halliday & Hasan (1976) which Martin rebranded in Martin (1992) as his own model of logical discourse semantics. There is no projection in Martin's model of logical discourse semantics because projection is not used cohesively.

[3] To be clear, in (26) the first figure is realised metaphorically as a prepositional phrase. In (27) and (28), two figures are realised congruently as clause complexes, each clause structurally related through hypotaxis (27) or parataxis (28). In (29), the two figures are realised by two clauses that are not structurally related, but instead related textually through cohesive conjunction.

Ideation: Meaning Beyond The Clause

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 13):

In terms of meaning beyond the clause, IDEATION allows us, for example, to anticipate activity – using one figure to name what’s to come (another thing that has been really annoying in (25)) and others to spell it out:

(25)

Oh another thing that has been really annoying this summer is —

⇓

you know when you go to a parking lot and it’s a busy place. You get in your car and you don’t necessarily want to leave immediately. Like you might want to — I might want to have Henry test his blood sugar, give the kids snacks. Or if we were at the pool, like change or look at my phone or send a text message or whatever. It drives me crazy when a car is like sitting there following you and then they just wait for you to leave.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in terms of IDEATION, this is not meaning beyond the clause because all the wording that follows the first em dash is embedded as the Token of a single clause.

That is, it does not use one figure to 'name what's to come' — it thematises a Value to provide the point of departure for a rhematic Token. And this suggests the discourse function of another thing that has been really annoying this summer: It has the textual function of serving as the point of departure of the 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.

Ideation: Lexicogrammatical Diversification

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 13, 232):

In terms of diversification IDEATION allows us, for example, to position¹⁵ figures lexicogrammatically through a range of clause types (Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999; Hao, 2015, 2020a,b):

(20) (behavioural clause realising the positioning of a state Figure)

‘It will be kind of fun’, she smiled.

(21) (mental clause realising the positioning of a state Figure)

She thought it would be kind of fun.

(22) (relational clause realising the positioning of a state Figure)

She was sure it would be kind of fun.

 

¹⁵ For Hao (2020) a positioned figure is one that is in some sense attributed to a particular source.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, by 'diversification', the authors mean 'diversification of grammatical systems realising discourse semantic ones' (p12).

[2] To be clear, 'positioned' figure is Hao's rebranding of Halliday & Matthiessen's 'projected' figure. (Hao was Martin's student and has adopted his modus operandi.)

[3] To be clear, this confuses a projecting clause with the logico-semantic relation of projection. The projecting clause does not realise the projection ('positioning') of a figure of being, it realises the figure that projects the figure of being. Note also: Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 302):

Note, finally, that while ‘behavioural’ clauses do not ‘project’ indirect speech or thought, they often appear in fictional narrative introducing direct speech, as a means of attaching a behavioural feature to the verbal process of ‘saying’.

[4] Again, this confuses a projecting clause with the logico-semantic relation of projection. The projecting mental clause does not realise the projection ('positioning') of a figure of being, it realises the sensing figure that projects the figure of being.

[5] To be clear, this confuses an embedded fact clause with a ranking projected clause. Importantly, being embedded, the fact clause is not projected ("positioned") by the Process of the clause in which it is embedded.

And this misunderstanding is then compounded by confusing what is mistaken to be a projecting relational clause with the logico-semantic relation of projection, as in the two previous examples.

Syntagmatic Units Of Content And Notional Definitions Of Metafunctions

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 8-9):

Kress and van Leeuwen’s breakthrough depended on their paradigmatic perspective on how images make meaning – formalised as system networks and tables in Kress and van Leeuwen (1990: 49, 61, 86, 108). This relational approach enabled them to bypass the pseudo-problems arising when scholars searched for syntagmatic units in semiotic systems that realise systems in structure very differently from the way language does. As critiqued in Martin (2011b), very little of the work inspired by Kress and van Leeuwen has proceeded along similar lines – unfortunately relying instead on notional definitions of ideational, interpersonal and textual meaning to explore modalities of communication other than language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, syntagmatic units are units of form, and so are restricted to the strata of lexicogrammar and phonology in language. As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 604) have argued, language is unique in having a content plane stratified into semantics and lexicogrammar, so other semiotic systems are organised into content and expression planes only. Consequently, the difficulty that scholars faced in finding syntagmatic units on the content plane of other, epilinguistic, semiotic systems was due to the fact that there are no forms to be found there.

[2] For some of the problems with Martin's work in epilinguistic semiotic systems, see

here (Working With Discourse 2007), and
here (Deploying Functional Grammar 2010).

[3] To be clear, in linguistics, 'notional' means

denoting or relating to an approach to grammar which is dependent on the definition of terminology (e.g. ‘a verb is a doing word’) as opposed to identification of structures and processes.

In SFL Theory, the metafunctions are not identified 'from below' by their structures, but 'from above' by their meanings (i.e. 'notionally'). Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 7-8):

The ideational metafunction is concerned with construing experience — it is language as a theory of reality, as a resource for reflecting on the world. The interpersonal metafunction is concerned with enacting interpersonal relations through language… . The textual metafunction … is concerned with organising ideational and interpersonal meaning as discourse — as meaning that is contextualised and shared.

A Phonological Analysis Of Tone And Tonicity

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

(14')

// … so

//3 hopefully next / time I will

//1 get my / hair colour / back //

(15')

//3 [handclap] / um / but for / now

//3 this will / do //

Blogger Comments:

This phonological analysis first appeared in Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 9-10). See Misunderstanding Rhythm And Tonicity. The problems with the authors' analysis are as follows.

[1] In the first tone group, the tonic is on next not time:

//3 hopefully / next time I will

This also makes more sense in terms of meaning, since it identifies next as the Focus of New information (contrasting with 'last' time).

[2] In the second tone group, the tone is tone 13, not tone 1, so the analysis misses the second tonic on back:

//13 get my / hair colour / back

Importantly, the handclap coincides with this tonic the authors have missed, and so the gesture is linguistic in Cléirigh's model, realising, with the tonic, a Focus of New information. That is, the authors have missed an important instance of what they have rebranded as "sonovergent" paralanguage.

[3] In the third tone group, the only problem is the significant mistiming of the handclap: 

//3 um /but for / now

[4] In the fourth tone group, the tone is tone 1-, a narrow fall in pitch, not a tone 3, a level or low rise in pitch:

//1- this will / do //

This also makes more sense in terms of meaning, since here the speaker has completed a section of discourse, which is more consistent with tone 1 than tone 3, since tone 3 tends to signal more meaning to come, as in the previous tone group.

∞

These analyses can be verified by listening to the data here.