The Argument That All Body Language Is Paralanguage

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.

The Semovergent Paralanguage Of PERIODICITY

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 19-20, 22-3):

As noted in sections “Sonovergent paralanguage and Information flow (textual semovergent paralanguage)” above however the vlogger does end the episode with a contrasting high then lowered pitch (Fig. 35). The higher pitch penultimate tone group begins rhythmically speaking with a handclap foot and then a foot comprising the ‘filler’ / um /.

This is followed by the low pitch tone group; the vlogger is winding down. Following this there is a suspension of both language and paralanguage as her the vlogger’s eyes shut and her head slumps forward (Fig. 36).

The preceding episode to the one we are using to explore sonovergence here ends in a similar way (lowered pitch, with eyes shut, head down) (Fig. 37). So shutting down language and paralanguage and handing over to somasis is clearly a strategy for punctuating longer waves of discourse. It is at these points that the vlogger cuts from one filmic segment to the next (as she thinks of something more to say).

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained here, in this instance, the authors mistook a (misanalysed) sequence of tones (language) as voice quality (paralanguage).  On Cléirigh's original model, any gestures consistent with the tone choices are instances of linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage), the concern of the present discussion.

[2] Here again, as above, the authors mistake a tone choice for paralanguage, and mistake the "sonovergent" gestures that are "in tune" with the pitch movement as "semovergent".

[3] The unarguable claim here is that ending discourse ('shutting down language and paralanguage and handing over to somasis') is one way ('strategy') of ending discourse ('punctuating longer waves of discourse').

∞

More to the point, the authors are here claiming to present paralinguistic examples of "longer waves of discourse".  In Martin & Rose (2007: 187-218), these are modelled in terms of:

• macro-Theme (introductory paragraph),
• hyper-Theme (topic sentence),
• hyper-New (paragraph summary), and
• macro-New (text summary).

To be clear, the authors have not identified any of the above in the text, and have not identified any semovergent paralanguage "in sync" with them.  Instead, the authors have merely mistaken intonation as paralanguage, and interpreted the unmarked tone for declaratives, tone 1 (and accompanying gestures) as "punctuating" a longer (unnamed) wave of discourse, while ignoring all the other instances of tone 1 (and accompanying gestures) at "non-punctuating" points in the discourse.

Again, the authors have tried to fit the data to their theory, instead of using theory to account for data.

Textual Semovergent Paralanguage

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 19, 30):

Information flow (textual semovergent paralanguage)

From a textual perspective²² we need to take into account how spoken language introduces entities and keeps track of them once there (IDENTIFICATION) and how it composes waves of information in tone groups, clauses and beyond (PERIODICITY).  Semovergent paralanguage potentially supports these resources with pointing gestures and whole body movement and position.

²² Martinec (1998) interprets textual meaning as realised through cohesion, following Halliday and Hasan (1976); here we follow Martin (1992) who reinterprets cohesion as discourse semantics, organised metafunctionally in Martin and Rose (2007) as ideational resources (IDEATION, CONNEXION), interpersonal resources (NEGOTIATION, APPRAISAL) and textual resources (IDENTIFICATION, PERIODICITY).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, despite this claim, it will be seen that the authors provide no instances of semovergent paralanguage in this paper that either introduce entities or keep track of them.

Moreover, IDENTIFICATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) grammatical cohesive systems of REFERENCE and ELLIPSIS-&-SUBSTITUTION, misunderstood, confused with ideational denotation and the interpersonal DEIXIS of nominal group structure, and relocated to discourse semantics; evidence here.

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, this confuses content (information) with expression (tone group), following Martin (1992: 384).  On the other hand, on Cléirigh's original model, any aspect of body language that highlights the focus of New information, or delineates a unit of information, functions as linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

[3] To be clear, PERIODICITY is Martin and Rose's (2003, 2007) reinterpretation of what Martin (1992: 393) models as interstratal interaction patterns as a textual systems of Martin's discourse semantic stratum.  However, Martin's model misrepresents writing pedagogy as linguistic theory, such that:

• introductory paragraph is rebranded as macro-Theme,
• topic sentence is rebranded as hyper-Theme,
• paragraph summary is rebranded as hyper-New, and
• text summary is rebranded as macro-New.

It will be seen that, unsurprisingly, the authors provide no instances of semovergent paralanguage in this paper that 'compose waves of information', let alone gestural realisations of introductory paragraphs, topic sentences, paragraph summaries or text summaries.

[4] To be clear, here Martin and his former student follow Martin (1992) in rebranding misunderstandings Halliday & Hasan's (1976) non-structural textual systems of lexicogrammar as structural discourse semantic systems across three metafunctions.

[5] To be clear, IDEATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) textual system of LEXICAL COHESION, misunderstood, confused with logical relations between experiential elements of nominal group structure, also misunderstood, and relocated to discourse semantics as an experiential system; evidence here.

[6] To be clear, CONNEXION does not feature in Martin and Rose (2007), or in Martin (1992). The term 'CONNEXION' is a rebranding of Martin's CONJUNCTION by Martin's former student, Hao. CONJUNCTION is Martin's misunderstanding of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) textual lexicogrammatical system of cohesive conjunction as a logical system at the level of discourse semantics.  Moreover, it confuses non-structural textual relations with structural logical relations, and misunderstands and misapplies the expansion relations involved; evidence here.

That is to say, CONJUNCTION was the only one of Halliday and Hasan's cohesive systems that Martin neglected to rebrand as his own system, and this oversight was finally addressed by his former student.

[7] To be clear, NEGOTIATION is Martin's (1992) rebranding of Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION.

De-Centring Postures To Soften Focus (Hao and Hood)

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 17-8, 20):

Hao and Hood (in press). draw attention to the use of what they call de-centering postures to soften focus, using the example of a shoulder shrug converging with fairly non-contractile in a biology lecture. The paralinguistic generalisation here would appear to be loss of equilibrium – e.g. asymmetrical facial expression, out of kilter posture or a rotating prone hand (interpretable as between prone and supine). Clear examples in our data are the faces the vlogger pulls as she struggles to name her skin condition in the second tone group below, the second of which is accompanied by two shakes of her head (Fig. 30).

// anyway
//^ ‘it was / some / granuloma /: / /^ / something
// I don’t know- it’s / called- it’s
// some sort of / skin thing //

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, FOCUS is a system of GRADUATION in the system of APPRAISAL.  However, fairly non-contractile is not an appraisal (of muscles), since no assessment is made of them in terms of AFFECT, APPRECIATION or JUDGEMENT.  Since there is no appraisal, there is no graduation of appraisal, and since there is no graduation of appraisal, there is no focusing of appraisal, and since there is no focusing of appraisal, there is no softening of the focus of appraisal.

Here Hao and Hood have made the same fundamental error as Martin, confusing intensification, in general, with intensification in the APPRAISAL system.  This is hardly surprising, given that Hao is Martin's former student and Hood is Martin's current de facto.

Further, the characterisation of a shoulder shrug as 'de-centring' misrepresents the bodily movement in order to align it with the meaning 'soften focus'; in other words, the data is being made to fit the theory, instead of the reverse.

Moreover, the characterisation of a shoulder shrug as meaning 'soften focus' is at odds with its interpretation by the general community.  For example, the (epilinguistic) pictorial representation of a shoulder shrug has been decoded as follows:

The person shrugging emoji can designate ignorance, indifference, self-acceptance, passive-aggression, annoyance, giving up, or not knowing what to make of something. It could also be a visual form of the one-word response of indifference, “whatever.”

[2] To be clear, here the authors have generalised 'loss of equilibrium realises softening of focus' from a gesture (shrug) which doesn't constitute a loss of equilibrium and which doesn't realise a softening of the focus of an appraisal.

[3] To be clear, here the authors propose, without supporting argument, that a rotating hand, balanced between prone and supine in orientation, constitutes a loss of equilibrium.

[4] To be clear, naming a skin condition does not constitute an appraisal, and so there is no graduation of appraisal in this instance to be softened.

In Cléirigh's original model of epilinguistic body language, any postures and gestures that signify uncertainty — the speaker's next words were "I don't know what it's called — are realisations of MODALITY: MODALISATION: probability.  

Moreover, in this example, the speaker's face instantiates linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), with her eyebrows rising with the pitch (tone 2) on the tonic something, signifying the general meaning of tone 2: 'polarity unknown'.

Paralanguage "Resonating With" GRADUATION: FOCUS

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 17, 19):

Alongside paralanguage of this kind converging with FORCE, Hood notes the potential for precise hand shapes and muscle tension to resonate with FOCUS. In the following example, introduced in section “Representation (ideational semovergent paralanguage)” above, the vlogger tightens her grip on the tiny virtual needle she is holding and frowns slightly in concentration as she role plays the precision involved in the dermatologist piercing her bumps (Fig. 29).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, FOCUS is a system of GRADUATION, which is concerned with the intensification of ATTITUDE in the interpersonal system of APPRAISAL.  Here, as the instance of language makes clear, no interpersonal assessment is being enacted, in terms of AFFECT, APPRECIATION, or JUDGEMENT, and so there is nothing to graduate in terms of FOCUS.

Moreover, in this instance, the authors have simply confused the focus of attention ('concentration') of the speaker with FOCUS as a system of APPRAISAL.

Mistaking Ideational Intensification For Interpersonal Intensification (Graduation)

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 17, 18):

Turning to GRADUATION, as noted by Hood (2011) the size of hand shapes and the range of hand/arm motion can be used to support graded language. In the following example the sweeping extent of the hand/arm motion resonates with the large quantity of hair dye in stock (whole stack) (Fig. 27).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here the authors confuse the general notion of intensification with a specific type of intensification: the graduation of attitude.  In this instance of language, there is no graduation of attitude because there is no attitude being expressed.  This is because attitude is a system of interpersonal assessment  and here no interpersonal assessment is being made.  That is, the extending post-Deictic whole does not assess the Thing stack by reference to positive or negative values of emotion, ethics or æsthetics, for example.

On the other hand, the speaker's positive evaluation of the re-stocking of her favourite hair dye is instantiated protolinguistically, with the emotion expressed through facial expressions.

[2] Here again the word 'support' demonstrates that the authors are concerned with matching body language expressions with language content, instead of body language content — a confusion which leads them to falsely conclude (p28) that paralanguage is a system of the expression plane only, which realises the content of language, alongside phonology and graphology.

[3] To be clear, this iconic gesture is epilinguistic ("semovergent"), but it realises ideational meaning, a Quality of the stack, not an interpersonal assessment.  So, in the authors' terms, it "concurs" with the "verbiage", rather than "resonating" with it.

[4] Trivially, the authors mislead by gradually increasing the size of screenshots to misrepresent the degree of intensification.

Interpersonal Semovergent Paralanguage

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 15):

Evaluation (interpersonal semovergent paralanguage) 

From an interpersonal perspective we need to take into account how spoken language inscribes attitudes, grades qualities and positions voices other than the speaker’s own (APPRAISAL). We also need to account for how speakers exchange feelings, greetings, calls for attention, information and goods & services in dialogue (NEGOTIATION). Semovergent paralanguage potentially resonates with APPRAISAL resources through facial expression, bodily stance, muscle tension hand/arm position and motion (Hood 2011, Ngo n.d. in press) and voice quality. Whereas spoken language can make explicit attitudes of different kinds (emotional reactions, judgements of character and appreciation of things), paralanguage can only enact emotion. A further interpersonal restriction (as suggested by Cleírigh), setting aside emblems (discussed in Section “Emblems” below; Kendon 2004, McNeill 2012), is that semovergent paralanguage cannot be used to distinguish move types in dialogic exchanges (although sonovergent paralanguage can of course support TONE choice in relation to these moves).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, NEGOTIATION is not evaluation.

[2] To be clear, interpersonal semovergent paralanguage is the authors' rebranding of the interpersonal dimension of Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language.

[3] Here again the authors are looking to match semantic stratum systems instantiated in spoken language to expression plane instances of body language, instead of asking what linguistic meanings, of any mode, are being realised in body language expressions.  It will be seen that this procedural error leads the authors to wrongly conclude (Table 6, p28) that all paralanguage is an expression of language itself.

[4] Correcting for the error identified in [3], this claim becomes, in more coherent theoretical terms:

the instantiation of interpersonal meanings of semovergent paralanguage, realised in facial expression, bodily stance, muscle tension hand/arm position and motion and voice quality, "agrees with" the instantiation of interpersonal meanings of APPRAISAL systems.

However, since, in Cléirigh's model, the meanings of APPRAISAL can be instantiated both protolinguistically and epilinguistically, as well as linguistically, it will be seen that almost all of the instances to be discussed cannot be accurately described as epilinguistic ("semovergent").

[5] To be clear, with regard to the APPRAISAL system of AFFECT, emotional reactions only appraise if they enact an interpersonal assessment.  For example, the clause that surprised me construes an emotional reaction, but it does not in itself, even implicitly, enact a positive or negative assessment.

[6] To be clear, the APPRAISAL system of JUDGEMENT is not limited to assessing 'character'.  For example, the clause capitalism is immoral enacts a judgement, but not of 'character'.

[7] To be clear, the APPRAISAL system of APPRECIATION is not limited to assessing 'things', either in the narrow sense of non-conscious material objects, or in the wider semantic sense in contrast to 'quality'.  For example:

• an ugly man — semantically: a conscious thing;
• a gorgeous blue — semantically: a quality;
• a breath-taking performance — semantically: a process;
• scoring that goal in extra-time was pure magic — semantically a figure;
• scoring one goal and setting up three more was sensational — semantically a sequence.

[8] On the one hand, this confuses the construal of experience as emotion (ideational metafunction) with the enactment of intersubjective relations through AFFECT (interpersonal metafunction), the latter being assessments made on the basis of emotion, such as She loves synchronised swimming.

On the other hand, this is misleading, because it falsely claims that paralanguage, in the authors' own terms, cannot realise the same meanings as tsk! tsk! (negative JUDGEMENT) or wow! (positive APPRECIATION).

[9] To the authors' credit, this is the only misspelling of Cléirigh in the entire article.

[10] The misunderstandings involved in the discussion of 'emblems' are very instructive, and will be examined in situ.

[11] If this is true, then, it is misleading to claim that NEGOTIATION "resonates" with semovergent paralanguage.

Gestural Motion "Supporting" Direction In Space Or Time

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 14, 16):

Motion can also be used to support direction in space or time (Fig. 23). Above in section “Sonovergent paralanguage” we illustrated two examples of hands sweeping right-to-left towards the past, concurring with the tone groups // bought previously when I // and // loved the first time //. These contrast with left-to-right movement towards the future, concurrent with // hopefully next time I will //. This motion to the right is reinforced by a pointing gesture, which we discuss in section “Information flow (textual semovergent paralanguage)” below (as textual semovergence).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here the authors propose a relation ('support') between the expression of one semiotic system, body language (direction of gesture movement), and the content of language ('direction in space or time').  That is, the authors are not concerned here with the content of body language itself.

[2] To be clear, here the authors interpret the direction of these two gestural motions as ideational in function, contradicting their previous (pp8-9) interpretation of it as textual in function:

In examples (2) and (3) the vlogger makes a sweeping right-to-left gesture referencing past time;

This same confusion is also found in the discourse semantic system of IDENTIFICATION (Martin 1992), where textual reference is confused with  reference in the sense of ideational denotation; evidence here.

[3] Here the authors deploy the logical fallacy known as begging the question (petitio principii), since they assume the very point that they are trying to make: that a gestural movement to the right signifies a "movement" to the future.

[4] To be clear, the claim here is that the direction of the body language gesture to the right agrees (is 'concurrent') with the meaning realised by the wording next time, which the authors interpret as 'movement toward the future'.

If next time is interpreted as a circumstantial Adjunct, then, as a circumstance of Location, it signifies 'rest' not 'motion'.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 317):

However, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3) list next time as an example of a conjunctive Adjunct (enhancement: spatiotemporal: complex).  On this reading, the meaning of next time is textual in metafunction, rather than ideational.

In Martin (1992), however, cohesive conjunction in the grammar is misunderstood as a logical system of discourse semantics (now termed CONNEXION).  That is, in Martin's terms, this gesture "concurs" with a logical relation between message parts in a message (here relabelled as figure and sequence, after Halliday & Matthiessen 1999).  However, the authors failed to recognise it as an instance of Martin's CONNEXION.

[5] To be clear, on the authors' model, a handshape realises an entity.  Since no entity is identified here, and the function is said to be textual rather than ideational, the conclusion must be that a pointed hand is not a handshape.

Martin's Notion Of Commitment

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 12-3):

In terms of commitment (i.e. the amount of meaning specified across semiotic modes; Martin 2010, Painter et al. 2013), the dermatologist and steroid are committed in the language but not the paralanguage; but the needle is more delicately committed in the paralanguage as a tiny pointed entity and then as a syringe. 

And the paralinguistic commitment of the bump in fact takes place two tone groups after it is committed verbally.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's notion of 'commitment' is invalidated by the fact that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the system network, namely: that a speaker can choose the degree of delicacy to be instantiated during logogenesis.  As Martin (2011: 255-6) explains:

Instantiation also opens up theoretical and descriptive space for considering commitment (Martin 2008, 2010), which refers to the amount of meaning instantiated as the text unfolds.  This depends on the number of optional systems taken up and the degree of delicacy pursued in those that are, so that the more systems entered, and the more options chosen, the greater the semantic weight of a text (Hood 2008).

To be clear, a system network is not a type of flowchart, such that instantiation involves a movement through more and more delicate systems.  A system network is a network of relations.  In the case of lexicogrammar, the system specifies how all the features are related to each other, such that the instantiation of each lexical item in a text is the instantiation of all the features that specify it, from the most general all the way to the most delicate.

In short, Martin misconstrues what the linguist can do — decide on the degree of delicacy "pursued" in analysing a text — as what a speaker can do; but see also [3] below.

[2] Translating into SFL theory, the claim here is that the meanings 'dermatologist' and 'steroid' are instantiated in the language but not in paralanguage.  However, this is manifestly untrue.  As previously explained, the body of the speaker herself represented the dermatologist in two figures ('taking the needle' and 'injecting the steroid').

The instantiation of the meaning 'steroid' is more subtle.  Because, as Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 156) point out, a Process requires a Medium for its actualisation, the gesture representing the 'injecting' Process implicates a Medium, and so the meaning 'fluid' is at least implicated in the gesture, even if the meaning 'steroid' is not precisely specified.  (Try gesturing the meaning 'steroid'.)

To be clear, the authors' false claim derives from two procedural errors:

• assuming that handshape is the only bodily expression of ideational meaning here, and
• analysing at the level of element ("entity") instead of figure (while claiming the latter).

[3] As explained in [1], Martin's notion of "more delicate commitment" is nonsensical, based as it is on his misunderstanding of what system networks represent.

However, here it can also be seen that Martin confuses 'delicacy' as a scale of decreasing generality in system networks with 'delicacy' as a scale of decreasing generality in construing experience as meaning, as in 'needle' vs 'tiny pointed entity'.   It can also be seen that, even in these terms, the authors have the relation backwards, since 'tiny pointed entity' is a more general construal than 'needle', not more delicate, since, as a class, it includes a broader range of potential members.

[4] To be clear, the word 'syringe' is not instantiated in the data.  It appears only in the authors' gloss of the body language accompanying the wording and injected this like steroid.

[5] As explained in the previous post, the reason why this gesture is made with the final figure, and not the second, is that it realises the nucleus of the final figure, it all bubbled up, rather than the meaning of the word bump in the second figure.  The authors' confusion again arises from analysing isolated elements instead of their functions in figures.

Ideational Semovergent Paralanguage

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 11, 12):

Representation (ideational semovergent paralanguage) 

From an ideational perspective we need to take into account how spoken language combines entities, occurrences, qualities and spatiotemporal circumscriptions as figures (IDEATION), and how these figures are connected to one another (CONNEXION).

Semovergent paralanguage supports these resources with hand shapes, which potentially concur with entities, and hand/arm motion, which potentially concurs with occurrences; the hand/arm motion is optionally directed, potentially concurring with spatiotemporal direction (to/from there in space, to/from then in time). We say “potentially concurring” because ideational paralanguage can be used on its own, without accompany spoken language; see the discussion of mime in section "Multidimensionality (multiplying meaning)" below.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'semovergent paralanguage' is the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language.

[2] As previously explained, and argued here, Martin's ideational discourse semantic systems of IDEATION and CONNEXION are neither ideational nor semantic, since they are misunderstood rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexical cohesion and cohesive conjunction, which are lexicogrammatical systems of the textual metafunction.

[3] To be clear, this is a matter of language, regardless of whether it is spoken, written or signed.

[4] To be clear, in the discourse semantic system of IDEATION (Martin 1992: 314-9; Martin & Rose 2007: 96), 'entity' refers only to a subtype of Range.

[5] To be clear, in the discourse semantic system of IDEATION (Martin 1992: 314-9; Martin & Rose 2007: 90ff), these are termed 'processes', not 'occurrences'.

[6] This is presumably a typo for 'spatiotemporal circumstances', merely one of nine general types of circumstance.

[7] This is very misleading.  To be clear, 'figure' is a type of phenomenon in the (genuinely) ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 48).  It does not feature in the discourse semantic system of IDEATION in Martin (1992).  Martin & Rose (2007: 74) introduce the term 'figure' without acknowledging their source and without integrating it into their model of IDEATION.  Moreover, because Martin's IDEATION is a rebranded misunderstanding of lexical cohesion, it cannot be integrated into their model in a theoretically consistent way.

[8] The word 'support' here is potentially misleading, since epilinguistic body language makes meaning in its own right.

[9] Here the authors propose 1-to-1 relationships between the expression of body language and the content of language — instead of the content of body language.  This confusion leads the authors to the false conclusion at the end of the paper that body language is just another expression mode of language itself.

Even so, the validity of proposed 1-to-1 relationships will be examined in upcoming posts.

[10] Here the authors mislead the reader by presenting a claim of Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language as if it is their own.

[11] See the upcoming critique of the authors' discussion of 'mime'.

Misunderstanding Rhythm And Tonicity

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 9-10):

Salient syllables other than the tonic syllable can be given additional prominence through various means. In the following sequence the vlogger’s pitch on the first tone group is unusually high, and contrasts with the descending lower pitch of the following tone group (a sing/song effect).

//3 hopefully / next ↑time I will
//1 get my / ↓hair colour / back //

And the vlogger’s eyebrows move up in tune and in sync with the higher pitch on / hopefully /, before lowering again by the end of the following tone group (Fig. 10).

The same sing/song effect follows on and culminates this section of the vlog, with a high pitch on the tonic syllable / now // contrasting with the low pitch on / do //. The vlogger’s eyebrows once again move up and down in tune and in sync with the contrasting pitch salience (this time on contrasting tonic syllables).

//3 [handclap] / um /but for / ↑now//3 this will / ↓do //

These rhythmic in-tune gestures reinforce the attitudinal import of the RHYTHM and TONICITY.

Blogger Comments:

[1] It will be seen below that not one of syllables discussed here is a non-tonic salient syllable.

[2] Here the authors confuse the textual function of phonological prominence with the interpersonal function of pitch movement.

[3] This misunderstands the data.  The "sing/song" effect is a result of the tone sequence 3^13; see [4].

[4] This analysis misrepresents the data.  What the speaker actually intones can be phonologically represented as:

//3 hopefully / next time I  will
//13 get my / hair colour / back //

Regarding the first of these, contrary to the authors' claims, even on their own analysis, time is not a salient syllable, and listening to the data reveals that the "unusually high pitch" extends throughout the tone group, rather than just for the word time.

With regard to the second tone group, contrary to the authors' claims, hair is a tonic syllable, not a non-tonic salient syllable.  This is because hair is the first tonic in a compound tone group.

[5] This claim is manifestly untrue, since if the eyebrows stay raised for two tone groups, it is neither "in sync" with one tone group (TONALITY) nor "in tune" with the major pitch movements (TONE) of the two tone groups: level/low rise – fall – level/low rise.

This is a case of the authors misrepresenting the data in order to make them fit their misunderstandings of Cléirigh's model.

[6] This "same sing/song" effect is this time simply a result of the tone sequence 3^1-.  What the speaker actually intones can be phonologically represented as:

//3 um /but for / now //1- this will / do //

That is, the handclap co-occurs with the tonic of the previous tone group, back, and the tone of the second tone group here is a narrow fall (1-), not a level/low-rise (3).

[7] Here the authors make a brave stab at guessing what these "rhythmic in-tune" gestures might mean.  But the truth lies elsewhere.

Firstly, this is potentially misleading.  On Cléirigh's original model, it is only the rhythmic dimension or aspect of a gesture that functions textually like the rhythm of speech, and it is only the rise/fall dimension or aspect of a gesture that functions interpersonally like the pitch movement of speech.  Other dimensions or aspects of a gesture may serve additional functions.

Secondly, the notion of 'import' here derives from the work of Martinec (and possibly van Leeuwen), but the authors present it as their own.

Thirdly, the notion of attitudinal import is inappropriate here for two reasons:

• attitude is concerned with interpersonal meaning whereas rhythm and tonicity are concerned with textual meaning, and
• there are no instances of attitude in the instances of text under discussion.

Fourthly, as previously explained, the tonic marks the focus of New information, and the non-tonic salient syllables identify the potential foci of New information that the speaker chose not to instantiate.

Misrepresenting Tonicity

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 9, 8):

The phonological system of TONICITY highlights a peak of informational prominence by positioning the major pitch movement of a tone group (its tone) on one or another of its salient syllables (its culminative salient syllable in the unmarked case). In example (4) the vlogger claps on the syllable realising the tone group’s major pitch movement – hair (Fig. 8).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, TONICITY is concerned with tonic prominence, not with the major pitch movement (TONE) of the tone group.

[2] To be clear, tonic prominence (phonology) realises the focus of New information (grammar).

[3] To be clear, in the unmarked case, tonic prominence falls on the salient syllable (the tonic syllable) of the last foot (the tonic foot) of a tone group; but there are many unmarked cases.  The 'culminative' syllable is the tonic syllable, wherever it occurs in a tone group.

[4] To be clear, in Cléirigh's model of linguistic body language, the clap on the tonic prominence is the expression plane realisation of the focus of New information in the grammar.

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.

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.