Blurring The Distinction Between Linguistic And Epilinguistic Body Language

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 8-9, 7, 8):

The phonological system of TONALITY organises spoken language into waves of information called tone groups, with one salient syllable carrying this tone movement. Gestures tend to be co-extensive with this periodic unit. In examples (2) and (3) the vlogger makes a sweeping right-to-left gesture referencing past time; the gestures unfold in sync with the temporal extent of the tone group (Figs. 6 and 7).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here the authors confuse the content plane with the expression plane.  The phonological system of TONALITY is concerned with the duration of the tone group, a phonological unit.  The duration of the tone group realises the duration of the information unit, a grammatical unit.  It is the information unit that constitutes the "wave of information", not the tone group.  This is not a new confusion on Martin's part; Martin (1992: 384) mistakes the system of INFORMATION for a phonological/graphological system.

[2] This is a bare assertion unsupported by evidence, and falsified by the vast majority of gestures that do not extend for the duration of a tone group.  In Cléirigh's model, it is not that gestures tend to be co-extensive with the tone group, but that, when they do, the extent of the gesture has the same function as the extent of a tone group, namely: the realisation of the extent of an information unit.

[3] To be clear, in Cléirigh's model, a gesture that realises the meaning 'past' is epilinguistic body language, not linguistic body language.  In terms of Martin's rebrandings of his source, this is 'semovergent paralanguage', not 'sonovergent paralanguage'.  Metafunctionally, the meaning is interpersonal as well as experiential, since it also means 'past' relative to the time of the speech event.

[4] To be clear, in Cléirigh's model, it is only this aspect of the gesture, its co-extension with a tone group, that constitutes linguistic body language (rebranded by Martin as 'sonovergent paralanguage').  Metafunctionally, the meaning is textual, demarcating a unit of Given and New information.

Ignoring Content And Getting The Phonology Wrong

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 8, 7):

The phonological system of TONE is realised through pitch movement. In example (1) the vlogger’s eyebrows move up in tune with the rising tone (tone 2) on the syllable prev (Fig. 5).

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this presents Cléirigh's linguistic body language as the authors' sonovergent paralanguage, though in doing so, the authors only present the expression plane of the system, ignoring the content being realised.

Since this is linguistic body language, the interpersonal meaning that the pitch and eyebrow movement both realise depends on the grammar, the choice of MOOD, which in this instance is declarative:

//4 but /^ I could / not / find the /hair dye that I //2 bought / previously when I //3 dyed my / hair which I //3 loved I //3 loved the/ first time

On Halliday's model, the combination of tone 2 with declarative mood realises a protesting or contradicting statement (Halliday 1994: 305), as in

//2 that / can't be / true // ('so don't try and tell me!')
//2 ^ it / didn't / hurt you ('so don't make a fuss') 

In the authors' data, however, the speaker is not making a protesting or contradicting statement, and so this casts doubt on the phonological analysis. Listening to the data reveals that the pitch movement on the tonic is fairly level, tone 3.

The basic meaning of ('low-rising') tone 3, on the other hand, is that the information being realised is dependent on something else (op. cit.: 303).  In this monologic instance, it could be take to mean 'hold on, there's more to come'.  (In dialogue, tone 3 can function as a as a turn-keeping device: 'I'm not finished yet, so don't interrupt!'.) On this basis, the instance in question is better analysed as an emphatic variant of tone 3, just like the three tones that follow (and also the  preceding "tone 4").

Two trivial errors can be noted:

• the tonic syllable is pre, not prev, and
• a 'rise-fall' eyebrow movement corresponds to tone 5, not tone 2.

Misrepresenting Cléirigh's Work As The Authors' Work

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 8, 6):

Sonovergent paralanguage converges with the prosodic phonology of spoken language (Halliday 1967, 1970; Halliday and Greaves 2008; Smith and Greaves 2015). From an interpersonal perspective, it resonates with tone and involves a body part (e.g. eyebrows or arms) moving up and down in tune with pitch movement in a tone group (TONE and marked salience). From a textual perspective it involves a body part (e.g. hands, head) beating in sync with the periodicity of speech – which might involve beats aligned with a salient syllable of a foot, the tonic syllable of a tone group, or a gesture co-extensive with a tone group (i.e. in sync with TONALITY, TONICITY or RHYTHM). An outline of this sonovergent paralanguage is presented in Table 4.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, 'sonovergent' paralanguage is the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's 'linguistic' body language, justified on the basis that the invented word 'sonovergent' is more transparent.  As previously explained, linguistic body language, as the name implies, is "convergent" with language itself and differs from language only in its mode of expression — the opposite of the authors' claim.  As Cléirigh originally elaborated:

	lexicogrammar	prosodic expression
		phonology	kinetic
textual	LEXICAL SALIENCE	RHYTHM	gesture (hand, head) in sync with the speech rhythm
	FOCUS OF NEW INFORMATION	TONICITY	gesture (hand, head) in sync with the tonic placement
	INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION	TONALITY	gesture (hand, head) co-extensive with tone group
interpersonal	KEY	TONE	gesture (eyebrow*, hand) in tune with the tone choice

* also: rolling of the eyes for tone 5.

[2] This is misleading.  Here the authors elaborate the details of Cléirigh's model of linguistic body language — see [1] — as if it is their own development of it as sonovergent paralanguage.  Proof that the omission of attribution is not accidental is provided by the misleading claim (p3) identified earlier which primes the reader for the interpretation of this work as the author's innovation:

We will in fact suggest that SFL’s tone group, analysed for rhythm and tone, provides an essential unit of analysis for work on paralanguage as far as questions of synchronicity across modalities are concerned.

The Pretext For Rebranding Cléirigh's Body Language Systems As The Authors' Paralanguage Systems

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 6, [5], 7, [6]):

In their work on intermodal relations in children’s picture books (Painter and Martin 2012; Painter et al. 2013) Painter and her colleagues suggest a model involving degrees of convergence between verbiage and image. The model is organised by metafunction – degrees of concurrence for ideational meaning, degrees of resonance for interpersonal meaning and degrees of synchronicity for textual meaning (for illustrative text analysis see Martin 2008, Painter and Martin 2012). The relevant terminology is presented in Table 2 below.

We have drawn on this terminology to deal with two dimensions of the relation between language and paralanguage introduced by Cléirigh as ‘linguistic body language’ and ‘epilinguistic body language’. The basic distinction here is between paralanguage that is in tune with (resonance) or in sync with (synchronicity) the prosodic phonology (i.e. rhythm and intonation) of spoken language on the one hand and on the other paralanguage that expresses meanings made possible by having language – in Cléirigh’s terms linguistic vs epilinguistic body language respectively. We have preferred a more transparent terminology, derived from Table 2, with phonologically convergent paralanguage referred to as sonovergent and semantically convergent paralanguage as semovergent. This revised terminology is outlined in Table 3.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] See the earlier clarifying critique The Notion Of Intermodal Convergence.

[2] To be clear, as previously explained, this model of intermodal relations merely compares the semogenesis of different semiotic modes and labels any similarity as 'convergence'.  So, in modelling the relations between language and paralanguage, it is limited to simply comparing them and noting any similarity; see [4] below.

[3] To be clear, the authors' pretext for rebranding Cléirigh's systems is that their newly invented words, 'sonovergent' and 'semovergent', are more "transparent"; see [4] below.

[4] To be clear, here the authors confuse a purported relation between semiotic modes — between language and paralanguage — with semiotic modes themselves, and rebrand the semiotic modes, linguistic and epilinguistic body language, in terms of the purported relation between them and language.

In considering the purported relations between language and paralanguage, as previously explained, the 'convergence' model is limited to the notion of similarity, so the authors are limited to identifying some point of similarity between language and paralanguage.  This leads them to propose that:

• linguistic body language is phonologically convergent with language ('sonovergent'), and
• epilinguistic body language is semantically convergent with language ('semovergent').

These claims can be examined in turn.

The problem with the claim that linguistic body language is phonologically convergent with language is that it is the exact opposite of what is true.  Being 'linguistic', linguistic body language is "convergent" with language itself.  Where it differs from language is in its mode of expression, visible body movements, usually silent, instead of audible sounds of the vocal tract.  This can be made more explicit by looking at the source of the authors' ideas, Cléirigh's model:

	lexicogrammar	prosodic expression
		phonology	kinetic
textual	LEXICAL SALIENCE	RHYTHM	gesture (hand, head) in sync with the speech rhythm
	FOCUS OF NEW INFORMATION	TONICITY	gesture (hand, head) in sync with the tonic placement
	INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION	TONALITY	gesture (hand, head) co-extensive with tone group
interpersonal	KEY	TONE	gesture (eyebrow, hand) in tune with the tone choice

By the authors' logic, graphology might also be described as "phonologically convergent" with language.

The problem with the claim that epilinguistic body language is "semantically convergent" with language is that it risks confusing bi-stratal epilanguage with tri-stratal language — a point that will be taken up in future posts that examine the authors' analyses of data.  A further problem is that epilinguistic body language is not exclusively paralinguistic — it can be used in the absence of language, as the practice of mime demonstrates.

Misunderstanding And Misrepresenting Protolinguistic Body Language

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 7): 

We have drawn on this terminology to deal with two dimensions of the relation between language and paralanguage introduced by Cléirigh as ‘linguistic body language’ and ‘epilinguistic body language’.¹¹

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 29):

¹¹ Cléirigh’s dimension of protolinguistic body language has been subsumed in our model as subtypes of somasis and interpersonal semovergent paralanguage. This avoids the problem of using the term protolinguistic for a paralinguistic system making meaning alongside language (protolanguage, as initial emergent semiosis, by definition cannot accompany language); and it makes room for paralinguistic systems enabled by the discourse semantic system of APPRAISAL, a system of meaning beyond the scope of Cléirigh's study.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The authors deliberately give low textual status to their argument for reinterpreting protolinguistic body language by placing it in an endnote rather than the body of the text.

[2] To be clear, the authors here reinterpret protolinguistic body language, the type of semiosis also found in other social species, as subtypes of non-semiotic behaviour — their 'somasis' — and epilinguistic body language — rebranded as 'semovergent paralanguage — the type of semiosis only possible for humans.

That is, they misinterpret the semiosis of rainbow lorikeets, for example, as either not semiosis at all, or as semiosis only humans can understand.

[3] This seriously misunderstands the source of the authors' ideas. On Cléirigh's model, protolanguage does not magically disappear with the ontogenetic move into language.  This is demonstrated by any facial expression that is interpretable to other members of a community, whether such protolanguage accompanies language — i.e as paralanguage — or not.  In terms of SFL expansion relations, the authors make the category error of misinterpreting temporal sequence (enhancement) as replacement (extension).

Moreover, interpreting the four microfunctions of protolanguage as one metafunction of epilanguage — interpersonal — creates further serious theoretical inconsistencies.

[4] To be clear, on the one hand, making the theoretical error identified above in [2] does not "make room" for these proposed paralinguistic systems, and on the other hand, there is no need to "make room" for them, because Cléirigh's model already accommodates them; see [6] below.

[5] To be clear, epilinguistic body language is body language made possible by language, not by theoretical models of it like APPRAISAL.

[6] To be clear, this is not beyond the scope of Cléirigh's theoretical model ("study"), merely beyond the authors' comprehension of it.

A complicating factor here is that the meanings modelled as (graduated) ATTITUDE in the system of APPRAISAL are not confined to language.  For example, in the protolanguage of rainbow lorikeets, the personal expression of anger, realised, for example, vocally as a loud, harsh low-pitched squawk, can function interpersonally as a negative judgement of another bird, as when a lower ranked bird tries to feed before a higher ranked bird.  An example of the realisation of positive judgement is a brief entwining of necks, initiated by a female lorikeet or pigeon — a gesture that has only been observed after a male partner has defeated a male rival.

Turning to epilinguistic body language, a common realisation of positive judgement is the 'thumbs up' sign, and of negative judgement is the 'thumbs down' sign.  Because these are epilinguistic, made possible by language, such expressions can vary from linguistic culture to linguistic culture. 

That is, in short, attitudinal meaning can be instantiated protolinguistically, linguistically or epilinguistically.

The Notion Of Intermodal Convergence

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 6):

In their work on intermodal relations in children’s picture books (Painter and Martin 2012; Painter et al. 2013) Painter and her colleagues suggest a model involving degrees of convergence between verbiage and image. The model is organised by metafunction – degrees of concurrence for ideational meaning, degrees of resonance for interpersonal meaning and degrees of synchronicity for textual meaning (for illustrative text analysis see Martin 2008, Painter and Martin 2012). The relevant terminology is presented in Table 2 below.

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 5):

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 7): 

We have drawn on this terminology to deal with two dimensions of the relation between language and paralanguage introduced by Cléirigh as ‘linguistic body language’ and ‘epilinguistic body language’.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the model of intermodal relations in

• Painter and Martin (2012)
• Painter, Martin and Unsworth (2013)
• Martin (2008)

merely proposes that the semogenesis in two modes is similar ("convergent") or different by degrees; cf. the secondary school mantra 'compare and contrast'. In SFL terms, this is simply the enhancement relation of comparison.  The superficiality of the model is only thinly disguised by giving different names to the same concept across metafunctions:

• ideational concurrence (i.e. 'agreement or consistency');
• interpersonal resonance (i.e. 'agreement');
• textual synchronicity (i.e. synchrony: 'simultaneous action, development, or occurrence').

[2] It will be seen in future posts that drawing on this terminology to rebrand Cléirigh's work involves both theoretical misunderstandings and internal inconsistencies.

Misunderstanding Semiosis

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 6, 29):

But we have found it useful to try and compile a range of behaviours that border on semiosis and which can be interpreted by social semiotic animals as indexing purposeful activity. As Halliday and Painter have shown, early protolinguistic semiosis involves a reconstrual of some of these activities as the expression face of signs. And all of the behaviour outlined above has the potential to be used as signs – for example stamping one’s foot in frustration, coughing to remind a meeting of one’s presence, shivering to indicate one is cold, sniffing to object to an odour, kissing on the cheek as a greeting and so on. In these cases there is some degree of deliberation involved, as manifested in the fact that the behaviour will synchronise with the prosodic phonology and turn-taking structure of an interaction and will be responded to as meaningful by co-participants.ⁱ⁰

ⁱ⁰ To put this another way, we are arguing that the behaviours outlined in Figure 3 can be treated as paralinguistic or not depending on whether or not they are negotiated as meaningful in interaction. We also need to acknowledge that what we are calling somatic behaviour has the potential to be imbued with cultural norms (e.g. a style of walking, norms for coughing or spitting etc.); these need to be taken into account in future work on somatic behaviour.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, any behaviour that can be interpreted as "indexing" anything other than itself, purposeful or otherwise, is functioning semiotically.  The behaviour is the expression (signifier) and what it "indexes" is the content (signified) of Saussure's sign.

[2] This is all true.  However, what the authors are totally unaware of is that they have already interpreted most of these behaviours as the expression "face" of signs when presenting them as non-semiotic, as demonstrated in the previous post.  Note that none of the examples provided are exclusively paralinguistic — the model being developed in this paper — since they can occur in the absence of language.

[3] To be clear, deliberation — or indeed deliberateness — is not criterial in determining whether a behaviour is interpreted as semiotic (meaning something other than itself). The lack of intention of a meaning maker does not make a meaningful behaviour any the less meaningful to others.

[4] To be clear, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence.  Consider what is being claimed.  The following behaviours are claimed to synchronise with the ongoing rhythm and intonation of the behaver's own speech:

• stamping one’s foot in frustration, 
• coughing to remind a meeting of one’s presence, 
• shivering to indicate one is cold, 
• sniffing to object to an odour, 
• kissing on the cheek as a greeting.

[5] To be clear, this is not a matter of interpersonal negotiation.  What matters is if a behaviour is construed as meaning something other than itself.  This does not depend on two interactants negotiating any agreement. 

[6] To be clear, assigning cultural values (content) to behavioural tokens (expression) is again treating the behaviours as semiotic, not as "somatic".

Interpreting Purportedly Non-Semiotic Behaviours As Semiotic

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 6, 4, 29):

Physical activity covers material action involving some change in the relationship of one physical entity to another (walking, running, jumping, throwing, breaking, cutting, digging, pulling etc.). Biological behaviour can be divided into changes that restore comfort (sneezing, coughing, scratching, laughing, adjusting garments or hair etc.) and changes that index discomfort (nail biting, fiddling, fidgeting, wriggling, blushing, shivering, crying etc.). Social communion can be divided into mutual perception (sharing gaze, pitch, proximity, touch, smell etc.) and reciprocal attachment (tickling, cradling, holding hands, hugging, stroking, hugging, kissing, mating etc.). These proposals are outlined in Fig. 3.

Trained as we are as linguists and semioticians we are not ourselves in a strong position to further develop this model.⁹ 

⁹ For exemplary forays into this realm of inquiry see Martinec (1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2004), who models somasis as if it was semiosis, drawing on SFL theory to do so.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, these are construals of experience as material processes.

[2] To be clear, contrary to the authors' stated intention, interpreting these behavioural and material processes as meaning something other than themselves, as

• changes restoring comfort,
• indexing discomfort,
• social communion,
• reciprocal attachment

is modelling them as semiotic, not "somatic".

[3] This is misleading. To be clear, the authors mistakenly model semiosis as if it were 'somasis', whereas Martinec models semiosis as semiosis.

Confusing Levels Of Complexity With Types Of Behaviour

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 5-6):

As far as somasis is concerned we have found it useful to draw on Halliday’s proposals for an evolutionary typology of systems (Halliday 1996: 388, Halliday 2005: 67–68). He recognises four orders of complexity, with semiotic systems evolving out of social systems, social systems out of biological ones and biological ones out of physical ones. We have adapted this framework in our classification of somatic behaviour, distinguishing physical activity, biological behaviour and social communion.

Blogger Comments:

This is a very serious misunderstanding. Here the authors map levels of emergent complexity onto types of behaviour:

		systems	types of non-semiotic behaviour
levels of  emergent  complexity	physical	sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules etc.	activity (walking, running etc.)
	biological	anatomy and physiology of organisms	behaviour (sneezing, coughing etc.)
	social	eusocial insect colonies	communion (hugging, mating etc)

On the authors' model, in the history of the universe, activities like walking and running etc. eventually complexified to the point where a new level of organisation emerged, behaviours like sneezing and coughing etc., which eventually complexified to a point where a further new level of organisation emerged, communion through hugging and mating etc.

To be clear, the authors have simply taken the names of the three levels of complexity that are not semiotic systems and used them to label their types of non-semiotic behaviour, without regard to the meanings of the source model or the implications when applied to behaviour.

In SFL theory, types of behaviour are construed by the ideational metafunction, and transitivity analyses of clauses, identifying the dimensions that differentiate subtypes of behavioural processes, would constitute evidence in support of any proposed categories.