Some Of The Problems With The Paralinguistic System Networks

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 199-200):

Our final step, for this book, was to map the meaning potential of each of these five paralinguistic systems. Ideational resources were presented in Chapter 4, focusing on the construal of paralinguistic entities and paralinguistic figures (both static and dynamic). Interpersonal resources were presented in Chapter 5, focusing on the enactment of FACIAL AFFECT, VOICE QUALITY and a range of attendant social relations. Textual resources were presented in Chapter 6, focusing on PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS and PARALINGUISTIC PERIODICITY. The affordances of each resource were formalised in system networks, outlining the range of meanings involved and their relation to one another (i.e. their valeur).

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated in the review of Chapter 4, the authors misunderstood paralanguage as an expression-only semiotic system, and all eight of the system networks confused discourse semantics with expression plane systems and features.

[2] As demonstrated in the review of Chapter 5, the authors mistook depictions on animated clay puppets for human paralanguage, modelled the bodily expression of emotion in terms of a linguistic system, AFFECT, despite the fact that other species express their emotions bodily demonstrates that these systems are protolinguistic, and so pre-metafunctional, not interpersonal.

[3] As demonstrated in the review of Chapter 6, the authors' system of DEIXIS models potential referents, not deixis, and the authors' model of PERIODICITY merely correlates a lecturer's location with what he is saying at the time, without demonstrating any realisation relation between his language and his location.

[4] This is misleading, because it is not true. No networks were provided for the system of PERIODICITY, and all eight of the ideational networks confused meaning with expression features.

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.

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.

Reference Endophoric To Body Language [2]

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

Problems With Virtual Paralinguistic Deixis

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 168):

In PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS the selection of [virtual] is realised through an unresolved vector, that is, one that does not direct a viewer’s gaze to a materially present phenomenon (Figure 6.3). Here a primary distinction in the recoverability of phenomena is made between [virtual:semiosis] and [virtual:location].

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, a gesture that does not direct a viewer's gaze is not deictic, since nothing is related to the here-&-now of the gesturer, and not reference, since it does not signal where an identity is recoverable. It will be seen that of the authors' two examples, the gesture in the first is not deictic, and the gesture in the second is not "unresolved".

[2] To be clear, the features 'semiosis' and 'location' distinguish referents. They do not distinguish the means of referring to them.

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).

The Confusion That Invalidates The Authors' Model Of Paralinguistic Identification/Deixis

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 165):

In spoken language a primary distinction is made between the recoverability of entities from assumed shared knowledge (homophora) and from the immediately present situation (Figure 6.1). If the latter, then recovery is either from within the text (endophora) or from outside the text (exophora). In paralanguage on the other hand, options for the recoverability of entities in discourse primarily distinguish between the feature [actual] realised through a resolved vector that is directed to visibly or sensibly (as if) present phenomena, and the feature [virtual] realised through an unresolved vector – that is, one that cannot be situationally resolved.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents the source of this theorising, Halliday & Hasan (1976: 33):

That is, exophoric reference is situational, whereas endophoric reference is textual, as the prefixes make plain. By the same token, homophoric reference is self-specifying.

[2] This is misleading because it is untrue. As the preceding post explained, textual epilinguistic body language also distinguishes between endophoric and exophoric reference. The features 'actual' and 'virtual', on the other hand, are not types of reference, but classifications of referents. It will be seen that the authors' system of PARALINGUISTIC DEIXIS is organised on the basis of this confusion, which thereby invalidates their model.

[3] In mathematics, a vector is a quantity with both magnitude (length) and direction, and a resolved vector is one that has been broken down into smaller component vectors; so an unresolved vector is one that has not been broken down into smaller component vectors. For the authors, however, 'vector' just means the direction of the pointing gesture, and its resolution is the identification of what is indicated by the pointing gesture, the referent.

[4] To be clear, if the referent of a pointing gesture (vector) is not identifiable, then the pointing gesture does not serve a reference function.

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' Threat

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

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

 

Blogger Comments:

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

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

Problems With The System Of The 'Emotion' Spirit

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

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

Blogger Comments:

The system in Figure 5.8 models paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system, and although this is consistent with the notion of a semiotic system, it is inconsistent with the preceding chapters in which paralanguage is misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. Where in previous chapters it was just paralinguistic expression that was semovergent with language, in this chapter it is both paralinguistic content and expression that is semovergent with language.

Problems With The System Of Voice Affect

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

The Paralinguistic Force Of Facial Affect Reconsidered

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 124):

Linguistic GRADUATION comprises two principal subsystems – FORCE and FOCUS. FORCE can function to adjust the relative intensity or quantity of inscribed attitude or to invoke an attitudinal meaning by grading ideational phenomena. FOCUS has to do with adjusting the categorical boundaries of phenomena as more or less sharply or softly defined (Hood, 2010, 2021; Hood and Zhang, 2020). However, unlike its linguistic counterpart and unlike the PARALINGUISTIC GRADUATION of body gestures (Hao and Hood, 2019; Hood and Zhang, 2020), FACIAL AFFECT can only be graded in FORCE. Features of [strong] to [weak] are shown as positions on a cline in Figure 5.4, realised through variations in muscle tension and/or the duration for which an expression is held.

Blogger Comments:

As previously demonstrated, the facial expression of emotion is not an interpersonal system of language, so the linguistic systems of APPRAISAL, such as ATTITUDE and GRADUATION, do not apply. Instead, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the facial expression of emotion serves the personal microfunction of protolanguage, and so what is presented here as graduated force is more consistently understood as a graduation of emotional intensity within the personal microfunction.

Simultaneous Emotion

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 123-4):

A further consideration in analysing and interpreting facial expressions is the potential for one feature of facial affect to transition very quickly into another in an animated expression. An instance in example (4) expresses both [surprise] and [spirit:up]. 

From a systemic functional perspective, rather than describing this as a blending or merging of emotions it is considered as the co-instantiation of two different emotions with each realised through particular parts of the face (e.g. eyes, eyebrows, mouth) and often in very quick succession. In (4) the raised curved eyebrows realise [surprise] and the upturned lips realise [spirit:up]. 

A facial expression of [surprise], interpreted as a perturbance (Martin, 2017a) typically has the briefest duration and often transitions quickly to the expression of another emotion, one which responds to the specific trigger of the perturbance.

Blogger Comments:

[1] From a systemic functional perspective, this blurs the axial distinction between simultaneous systems ('both', 'co-instantiation', 'and') and syntagmatic order ('transition', 'succession'). Moreover, if two emotions can be realised in the same facial expression, the system network needs to be redrawn to represent simultaneous (conjunct) systems. This the authors have not done.

[2] On the one hand, the claim that a facial expression of surprise typically has the briefest duration is an instance of the logical fallacy known as ipse dixit: a bare assertion unsupported by evidence, and is belied by synonyms for 'surprised' such as 'stupefied' and 'dumbfounded'. On the other hand, surprise is the emotion that is the response to what triggered it as a perturbance.

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.

Problems With The System Of Facial Affect

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 120, 121):

The systemic functional semiotic system of FACIAL AFFECT presented in Figure 5.3 takes into account these important contributions in a number of areas, including descriptive terminology. For example, the naming of features in the model of FACIAL AFFECT avoids the use of Ekman’s terms of ‘happiness’ and ‘sadness’ as [happiness] is already a feature in linguistic ATTITUDE. Instead emotion terminology is sourced to Darwin’s (1872) opposition in facial movements of ‘high spirit’ and ‘low spirit’. Darwin’s influence is seen in Figure 5.3 in the naming of the feature [spirit] and its opposing features as [up] and [down].

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the system in Figure 5.3 confirms the fact that here the authors model paralanguage as a bi-stratal semiotic system. As previously noted, 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] To be clear, the title of Darwin (1872), The expression of the emotions in man and animals, acknowledges that the expression of emotion does not require the evolution and development of language. As such, the facial expression of emotion is protolanguage, not language.

Where AFFECT is a system of the interpersonal metafunction in the tri-stratal semiotic of language, protolanguage is a bi-stratal system that is pre-metafunctional. On Halliday's model, the expression of emotion serves the personal microfunction. 

In short, to model the personal microfunction of protolanguage as the interpersonal metafunction of language, as FACIAL AFFECT, is theoretically invalid.

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".