Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 26):
Compared to other modalities of communication, paralanguage has a distinctive relation to language in that it is coordinated with prosodic phonology. This is obviously true, by definition, for sonovergent paralanguage. But semovergent paralanguage is also coordinated with TONALITY, TONICITY RHYTHM and TONE, since gestures, facial expression, bodily stance and sounds unfold in measures of time converging with units of rhythm and intonation. Even brief episodes of mime follow this principle, filling in for ‘missing’ tonic segments or tone groups as a whole. Alongside this expression form of temporal dependency, paralanguage is dependent on the content form of language because of its inherent generality. Semovergent paralanguage typically commits meaning far less specifically than spoken language can; instantiations are by and large interpretable with respect to what is said. With respect to these two dependencies, the prefix para- (understood as ‘beside’) is appropriate.
Blogger Comments:
[1] As previously noted, the authors have not demonstrated this to be the case; they have merely presented the language accompanying gestures with markers of tone group boundaries in order to fudge their argument. This is the logical fallacy known as begging the question (petitio principii).
[2] Here the authors claim that the use of mime in the absence of language demonstrates that mime is timed with units of rhythm and intonation. By the same logic, it could be argued that mime is timed with the units of grammar or semantics that are also absent.
[3] Here the authors interpret the fact that epilinguistic body language (semovergent paralanguage) can occur with or without prosodic phonology as body language being dependent on prosodic phonology.
[4] Here the authors claim that epilinguistic body language (semovergent paralanguage) is dependent on the content form of language. Apparently unknown to the authors, the content form of language refers to the rank units of the grammar: clause, phrase/group, word and morpheme. On the one hand, the authors have not demonstrated any relations between epilinguistic body language and grammatical forms, and on the other hand, epilinguistic body language is bi-stratal: content / expression only — it has no grammatical stratum.
[5] Here the authors confuse descriptive delicacy — which Martin's 'commitment' confuses with systemic delicacy — with stratification. Because epilinguistic body language, like all epilanguage, is only bi-stratal, it lacks the grammatical resources for realising meaning. That is, its (linguistic) meaning can only be realised directly in expression systems, and this greatly reduces its semogenic potential in comparison to language.
[6] To be clear, the authors argue that body language is 'para-' on the basis that it is 'hypo-' (dependent); cf. paratactic vs hypotactic. Moreover, neither of the stated dependencies survives close scrutiny, as [4] and [5] above demonstrate. That is to say, the authors' argument does not support their claim that 'paralanguage' is an appropriate characterisation of these two body language systems.
[2] Here the authors claim that the use of mime in the absence of language demonstrates that mime is timed with units of rhythm and intonation. By the same logic, it could be argued that mime is timed with the units of grammar or semantics that are also absent.
[3] Here the authors interpret the fact that epilinguistic body language (semovergent paralanguage) can occur with or without prosodic phonology as body language being dependent on prosodic phonology.
[4] Here the authors claim that epilinguistic body language (semovergent paralanguage) is dependent on the content form of language. Apparently unknown to the authors, the content form of language refers to the rank units of the grammar: clause, phrase/group, word and morpheme. On the one hand, the authors have not demonstrated any relations between epilinguistic body language and grammatical forms, and on the other hand, epilinguistic body language is bi-stratal: content / expression only — it has no grammatical stratum.
[5] Here the authors confuse descriptive delicacy — which Martin's 'commitment' confuses with systemic delicacy — with stratification. Because epilinguistic body language, like all epilanguage, is only bi-stratal, it lacks the grammatical resources for realising meaning. That is, its (linguistic) meaning can only be realised directly in expression systems, and this greatly reduces its semogenic potential in comparison to language.
[6] To be clear, the authors argue that body language is 'para-' on the basis that it is 'hypo-' (dependent); cf. paratactic vs hypotactic. Moreover, neither of the stated dependencies survives close scrutiny, as [4] and [5] above demonstrate. That is to say, the authors' argument does not support their claim that 'paralanguage' is an appropriate characterisation of these two body language systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment