Drawing On Martin's Discourse Semantics To Model Paralanguage

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 3):

We also feel that further development of Martinec’s pioneering modelling is timely in light of theoretical and descriptive developments in SFL since his work. This has mainly to do with a clearer articulation of the stratification of language as levels of phonology, lexicogrammar and discourse semantics (e.g. Martin 2010; 2011; 2014; Martin and Rose 2007). Martinec’s work draws largely on Halliday’s lexicogrammatical systems (those proposed in Halliday 1985), the same systems which inspired Kress and van Leeuwen’s (1996) breakthrough. We have found it illuminating to further develop this work by drawing on ideational, interpersonal and textual systems at the level of discourse semantics (IDEATION, CONNEXION, NEGOTIATION, APPRAISAL, IDENTIFICATION and PERIODICITY). Work on APPRAISAL (the language of evaluation) in particular (Martin and White 2005) has a number of ramifications for models of paralanguage, especially in relation to the relative marginalisation of these resources in canonical work by Calbris (Calbris 2011), Kendon (Kendon 1997) and McNeill (McNeill 2006).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading.  Martin's theoretical and descriptive developments of SFL theory do not provide a "clearer articulation" of the stratification of language, largely because Martin does not understand the principle underlying stratification, as demonstrated here (stratification) and here (realisation).  However, Martin doesn't just confuse strata, he confuses planes:

• Martin (1992: 401) misinterprets content (INFORMATION) as expression (phonology);
• Martin (1992: 292ff) misinterprets content ("activity sequences") as context (field);
• Martin (1992: 493ff) misinterprets varieties of content (register/genre) as systems of context.

[2] This is misleading.  Despite positively evaluating Martin's model as 'illuminating', the authors do not actually draw on it in this paper, as will be demonstrated in future posts.  (The institutional function of the authors' claim is merely to locate this model of paralanguage within Martin's stable of work).  Moreover, it will be demonstrated in later posts why it is a theoretical mistake to model these discourse semantic systems as the content of paralinguistic systems.

[3] The two exceptions here are NEGOTIATION and APPRAISAL.  This is because these are genuine semantic systems, rather than Martin's rebrandings of textual lexicogrammatical systems as discourse semantics).  Because NEGOTIATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION, its meanings can be realised by Cléirigh's 'linguistic' body language (rebranded by the authors as 'sonovergent paralanguage'), as will be seen in later posts. The graduated attitudes of APPRAISAL, on the other hand, are a feature of protolinguistic, linguistic and epilinguistic semiosis, on Cléirigh's original model, as will be demonstrated in future posts.