An Instance Of Semovergent Paralanguage That Isn't Semovergent

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 13-15):

Turning from a static to a dynamic perspective, the language of this sequence makes explicit three occurrences (took, injected, bubbled). The paralanguage concurs with these, and in addition uses six rapid piercing gestures to make explicit the occurrences implied by the second tone group (Figs. 17 and 18). 

In each case the entity indicated by the hand shape is in motion, as the dermatologist picks the needle up, pierces the bumps, injects the steroid and the bump bubbles up (Figs. 19 and 20).

 

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

// and so the dermatologist um took like this needle
// and under each like bump
// and injected this like steroid
// and like it all bubbled up //

[1] Translating into SFL theory, this becomes:

Turning from participant elements ("entities") to process elements ("occurrences"), the language of this sequence construes three processes (took, injected, bubbled).

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, here the meanings of paralanguage do not "concur" with the meanings of language.  That is, this "semovergent" paralanguage is not semovergent.  The unfolding gestures realise the dermatologist taking a needle then pricking six granulomas.  This does not concur with and under each like bump, nor with and injected this like steroid (the latter meaning being realised by the entirely different gesture depicted in Figure 19).

[3] As previously explained, if these elements are considered in terms of the functions they serve in a figure, then the moving handshape realises the nucleus of the figure, the Process and the Medium through which the Process is actualised, with the speaker representing the Agent (dermatologist) of the first two figures.

[4] Trivially, Figures 17-20 use the term 'event' rather than 'occurrence' (or indeed 'process').