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.