Martin & Zappavigna's Model Of Paralanguage

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 28):

Our model of paralanguage might also prove of interest as a contribution to the growing field of interactional linguists (Ochs et al. 1996; Fox et al. 2013; Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2001, 2018). These linguists see language structure as an emergent phenomenon which can only be understood in relation to the use of language in dialogue, and they draw heavily on Conversation Analysis (CA) in their research. This brings paralanguage and other modalities of communication into the picture as far as our understanding of language is concerned (cf. Heath and Luff 2013). SFL’s perspectives on multimodality creates an opportunity for linguistics to make a stronger contribution to this transdisciplinary exercise (Martin forthcoming).

Blogger Comments:

The authors end their paper by leaving the reader with the confirmation that Cléirigh's model of body language is henceforth their model of paralanguage.

The Model Of Intermodal Convergence

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 27-8):

As we stressed at the beginning of the paper building models of intermodality is facilitated if the descriptions of distinct modalities are informed by the same theoretical principles; and this is important for applications. Work in educational linguistics, for example Hood (2011) and Hao and Hood (in press), regularly has to deal with the interaction of language, paralanguage and imaging on Power Point slides. And for forensic linguistics, for example Martin and Zappavigna (2013) and Martin and Zappavigna, 2018, Zappavigna and Martin (2018), language and paralanguage interact with the semiotics of the location of the legal proceedings (which are very different for courtrooms and Youth Justice Conferences). The model of intermodal convergence (ideational concurrence, interpersonal resonance and textual synchronicity) presented in Table 2 above is far easier to operationalise when each of the modalities involved is interpreted from the perspective of SFL.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors have concluded that paralanguage is an expression system of language.  That is, in their own terms, they have not provided a model of intermodality any more than proposing a phonological or graphological system of language would be a model of intermodality.

[2] To be clear, since the authors have concluded that paralanguage is an expression system of language, language and paralanguage do not interact, any more than language and phonology interact.

[3] To be clear, the model of intermodal convergence is one idea, redundantly given different names for each metafunction.  Moreover, the one idea is merely the superficial observation that different semiotic modes can make the same meaning.

More importantly, since the authors have concluded that paralanguage is an expression system of language, this model of intermodal convergence no longer applies, which, in turn, undermines the entire argument of the paper, given that the paper is predicated on the intermodal convergence of language and paralanguage (sonovergent vs semovergent).

Our Evolving Work Using Cléirigh's Model

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 27):

Our evolving work on these dependencies can be tracked through Martin et al. (2010), Hood (2011), Martin (2011), Martin, Zappavigna, Dwyer, and Cléirigh (2013) Martin and Zappavigna, 2018, Zappavigna and Martin (2018), and Hao and Hood (in press). From the perspective of SFL the most pertinent work on relations between modalities to compare with these studies is Painter et al. 2013 (on language and image in children’s picture books). Beyond these initiatives, multimodal discourse analysis research is best guided by Bateman et al. (2017).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, since it misrepresents the authorship of this first publication featuring Cléirigh's model of body language.  The actual citation is:

• Zappavigna, M., C. Cléirigh, P. Dwyer & J. R. Martin. 2010. The coupling of gesture and phonology. In M. Bednarek, & J.R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity and affiliation. London: Continuum. 219–236.

The function of misrepresenting Martin as the first author is to position Martin as the origination of "our evolving work". (The paper was primarily written by Zappavigna, using Cléirigh's model; Dwyer and Martin were the tenured academics who were granted funding for the project.)

[2] As the clarifying critiques on this blog demonstrate, "our evolving work" involves serious misunderstandings of Cléirigh's model of body language, with these misunderstandings now rebranded as Martin's model of paralanguage.

[3] To be clear, Bateman favourably reviewed Martin's first major publication, English Text (1992). However, in doing so, he neglected to check the provenance of "Martin's" ideas or to consider whether the work was consistent with SFL theory or even with itself; evidence here.  For some of Bateman's misunderstandings of SFL theory, see here.

What Semovergent Paralanguage Does

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 25):

semovergent systems construe ideational meaning, enact interpersonal meaning and compose textual meaning convergently with the discourse semantics of language (and its realisation through lexi[c]ogrammar).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the claim here is that semovergent paralanguage (Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language) and discourse semantics construe the same ideational meaning; that is to say, that semovergent paralanguage instantiates the meanings of Martin's systems of IDEATION (experiential) and CONNEXION (logical).  There are two main problems with this claim:

Firstly, as previously demonstrated, the authors have not provided any evidence in support of the claim.  Secondly, Martin's two systems, IDEATION and CONNEXION, are his rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) LEXICAL COHESION and COHESIVE CONJUNCTION, which are grammatical, not semantic, and textual in metafunction, not ideational.

[2] To be clear, the claim here is that semovergent paralanguage and discourse semantics enact the same interpersonal meaning; that is to say, that semovergent paralanguage instantiates the meanings of Martin's systems of NEGOTIATION and APPRAISAL.  There is one main problem with this claim:

As previously demonstrated, the authors have not provided any evidence in support of the claim.  That is, there are no instances of gestures realising NEGOTIATION features, and the gestures presented as realising APPRAISAL features are protolinguistic, not epilinguistic (semovergent).

[3] To be clear, the claim here is that semovergent paralanguage and discourse semantics compose the same textual meaning; that is to say, that semovergent paralanguage instantiates the meanings of Martin's systems of IDENTIFICATION and PERIODICITY. There are two main problems with this claim:

Firstly, as previously demonstrated, the authors have not provided any evidence in support of the claim.  That is to say, there are no instances of gestures realising the introduction of entities and their tracking through the discourse, and there are no instances of gestures realising macro-Themes, hyper-Themes, hyper-News or macro-News.

Secondly, Martin's system of IDENTIFICATION is his rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) COHESIVE REFERENCE, which is a grammatical system, not a semantic system; and Martin's system of PERIODICITY is writing pedagogy misunderstood as textual semantics.

[4] To be clear, Martin (1992) provides no specifications on how his discourse semantic systems are realised in lexicogrammatical systems.

What The Authors Have Done In This Paper

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 25):

In this paper we have outlined a model distinguishing behaviour from meaning (somasis vs semiosis), and within semiosis, language from paralanguage. Paralanguage itself was then divided into sonovergent and semovergent systems according to their convergence with either the expression plane or content plane of language.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the model the authors have outlined is (part of) Cléirigh's model, linguistic and epilinguistic body language, though misunderstood and rebranded as their own systems, sonovergent and semovergent paralanguage.

[2] As previously demonstrated here, having distinguished non-semiotic behaviour from semiosis, the authors then interpret non-semiotic behaviour as semiotic.

[3] As previously demonstrated, the paralanguage that the authors rebrand as 'sonovergent' is actually, in their own terms, 'semovergent', not 'sonovergent', because it instantiates the same meanings as language, but it diverges from language in the way it is expressed, gesturally rather than vocally.

On the other hand, the authors' approach to semovergent paralanguage has been merely an unsuccessful attempt to fit gestural data to Martin's discourse semantic systems, instead of using the gestural data to encode theory.  This will lead them to the erroneous conclusion (p26, 28) that paralanguage is an alternative expression form of language, alongside phonology, graphology and sign.

Multiple Dimensions Of Paralanguage Converging On The Same Tone Group

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 20, 16):

Although presented as a simple taxonomy, all five subtypes of paralanguage can combine with one another in support of a single tone group (Fig. 38). 

Several examples of multiple dimensions of paralanguage converging on the same tone group were in fact presented above (for example, the combination of motion towards the future and pointing deixis in Example (19) of section “representation (ideational semovergent paralanguage)”). 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is Cléirigh's original model misleadingly presented as if it is a claim of the authors.

[2] As previous posts have demonstrated, this is not true of epilinguistic body language ("semovergent paralanguage"), which can be instantiated with or without language.  The authors have tried to mislead the reader, in this regard, by simply presenting all the text accompanying body language with tone group boundaries (//).

[3] For the misunderstandings and misrepresentations involved in the authors' analysis of this instance, see the two previous posts:

• Gestural Motion "Supporting" Direction In Space Or Time
• Introducing And Tracking Entities Through Finger Pointing

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.

The Semovergent Paralanguage Of ENGAGEMENT

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 18, 20, 21):

Turning to ENGAGEMENT, Hood notes the significance of hand position as far as supporting the expansion and contraction of heteroglossia is concerned – with supine hands opening up dialogism and prone hands closing it down. In the following example the vlogger’s supine hands converge with the modalisation probably, reinforcing acknowledgement of the viewers voice (Fig. 31).

 

Two moves later the hands flip over to prone position in support of the negative move shutting down the expectation that the vlogger was in control of the new colour of her hair (Fig. 32).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading; the speaker's handshape does not "converge" with modalisation probably. To be clear, the speaker's handshape is timed with the tonic hair.  The timing of the gesture thus instantiates textual linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), highlighting hair as the focus of New information.  On this basis, the handshape instantiates ideational epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage), realising hair.

In this first instance, the authors have again tried to make the data fit their theory, instead of using the data as a resource for theorising.

[2] This is misleading; the speaker's hands are not in a prone position — lying flat, palm downwards — in this instance.  Instead, each hand has the tips of the thumb and curved forefinger touching to form a horizontal circle, with the other fingers below them and similarly curved.  This handshape is consistent with holding an object, such as a bottle of hair dye, which would be an instance of ideational epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

In this second instance, the authors have again tried to make the data fit their theory, instead of using the data as a resource for theorising.

As in the first instance above, the gestures also realise the meanings of linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage).  In terms of the textual metafunction, both hands beat down on the salient syllables not and find, highlighting both Finite and Predicator, and then on the tonic hair, marking  the Complement hair dye as the focus of New information.  In terms of the interpersonal metafunction, both hands stay level for the tonic segment (hair dye that I), in line with the level/low-rising tone choice (tone 3).  (Note that this tone group is incorrectly analysed as tone 4 by Smith, which, with declarative MOOD, would realise the KEY meaning 'reservation'.)

Lastly, the reader may also want to consider why the speaker would need to shut down the possibility of other points of view on the proposition I could not find the hair dye that I bought previously when I dyed my hair.

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.

An Epilinguistic Projection Of Protolinguistic Body Language

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 16, 18):

A good example of a combined face and body commitment of affect in the vlog we are drawing our examples from comes as the vlogger is complaining about being hassled for her parking spot before she is ready to leave. The relevant tone groups are presented below, and we will return to this example in our discussion of mime in section “Emblems” below. At this point we are simply interested in the way the vlogger’s facial expression and arm position are used to express the hassler’s exasperation (Fig. 26).

// some guy was sitting there
// and there was cars behind him
// and he was like
// [mimics man’s expression]
// [mimics man’s gesture] like
// waving me out //

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, the relation between expression ('face and body') and content ('affect') is realisation, not commitment.  'Commitment' is Martin's misunderstanding of instantiation, as previously explained here.

[2] To be clear, the presentation of the data of tone groups is misleading.  These tone groups are not analysed for tone or tonicity, and there are no foot boundaries indicating the speech rhythm.  That is, the term 'tone group' is entirely redundant here, since the same point can be made by a simple transcript:

some guy was sitting there and there was cars behind him and he was like [mimics man’s expression] [mimics man’s gesture] like waving me out

The reason the term 'tone group' is used here is to give false support to the proposal (p3):

We will in fact suggest that SFL’s tone group, analysed for rhythm and tone, provides an essential unit of analysis for work on paralanguage as far as questions of synchronicity across modalities are concerned.

[3] To be clear, this expression of exasperation realises ATTITUDE, not because it expresses an emotion, but because the exasperation enacts an assessment (of the speaker by a motorist).

In terms of Cléirigh's original model, contrary to the authors' interpretation, the motorist's ATTITUDE is realised in protolinguistic body language, not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).  The gesture is a manifestation of a conscious state that functions socio-semiotically.

The vlogger's mime of the motorist's body language, on the other hand, is an instance of epilinguistic body language in which she projects the motorist's protolinguistic body language that assesses her.

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.

Failing To Account For Body Language Meaning

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 14, 16):

Motion can also occur on its own, without a handshape concurring with an entity (Fig. 22). For example the vlogger uses a circular hand motion (two rotations) concurrent with the tone group // tried washing it out and it's //. 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the hand is always shaped in some way. The semiotic question is whether or not the shape means something other than itself.  

The authors' (unsupported) declaration (p12) that handshapes "concur" with linguistic elements ("entities") ignores the meaning of all the handshapes that violate that stipulation, such as those depicted in Figure 22.  

So in this instance, the authors' failure to identify body language meaning is presented, instead, as just one way that the body language system works.

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').

Misinterpreting The Data

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 12-3):

By way of illustration we now move to the next section in the vlog, which concerns a visit to the vlogger’s dermatologist (for treatment for granuloma). The sequence of figures we are interested in unfolds verbally in tone groups as follows (for the complete anecdote see Appendix B):

// 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 //

From the perspective of language, this sequence makes explicit four entities (dermatologist, needle, bump, steroid). The paralanguage uses handshape to concur with two of these (needle and bump) (Fig. 16). The ‘needle’ is first rendered as a tiny pointed entity the vlogger holds between thumb and index finger, and then with the hand shape used for holding a syringe. The ‘bump’ is not actually visualised until the fourth tone group, where it renders the shape of the steroid bubbling up. As we can see, the meanings construed in language and paralanguage can either correspond or complement one another. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. To be clear, 'sequence' and 'figure' are types of phenomenon in the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 48); they do not feature in the discourse semantic system of IDEATION (Martin 1992).

[2] Having introduced the data in terms of two higher orders of phenomenon in Halliday & Matthiessen's ideational semantics, sequence and figure, the authors actually analyse the data in terms of the lowest order, element.

[3] To be clear, the claim here is that the meaning realised by the handshape "concurs" with the meaning realised by the wordings needle and bump.  However, neither of the two handshapes realises needle, since neither handshape depicts a sharply pointed metal stick; see further in [5] below.  

[4] There are several inconsistencies in Figure 16.

• Firstly, the paralanguage gloss confuses content (holding needle, holding syringe) with expression (cupped hands).

• Secondly, the glosses correlate elements ("entities") of language (needle, bump) with figures for paralanguage (holding needle, holding syringe).

• Thirdly, the glosses of the paralanguage content are not motivated by the data.  On the basis of both the gestures and the accompanying language, the glosses are more consistently construed along the lines of taking needle and injecting steroid; moreover, the word syringe was not used by the speaker.

[5] To be clear, this handshape does not depict a needle.  Instead, the handshape realises the same meaning as the wording took this needle in the figure so the dermatologist took this needle; that is, it realises the nucleus of the figure, Process and Medium.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 156):

Semantically, the nucleus construes the centre of gravity of a figure, the focal point around which the system of figures is organised. When we describe the Medium as "actualising" the Process, we are really saying that the unfolding is constituted by the fusion of the two together — there can be no Process without an element through which this process is translated from the virtual to the actual.

Note that the Agent of this figure, the dermatologist, is represented by the speaker herself.

[6] To be clear, this handshape does not depict a needle.  Instead, the handshape realises the same meaning as the wording injected steroid in the figure and under each bump injected this steroid; that is, this again realises the the nucleus of the figure.  Again the (ellipsed) Agent of this figure, the dermatologist, is represented by the speaker herself.

[7] In this instance the handshape does depict one of the bumps (granulomas).  However, 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, and like it all bubbled up, rather than the meaning of the word bump in the second figure.

Note that, on the authors' interpretation, the meaning of the second tone group does not "concur" with the meaning of the co-occurring body language.

[8] To be clear, the handshape depicts the shape of a granuloma as it rises after the injection of the steroid.

[9] To be clear, the superficiality of this claim can be made more explicit by considering what it rules out:  

• the meanings construed in language and paralanguage neither correspond nor complement one another.

∞

These issues will be revisited in the following two posts.

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'.

Ideational Semovergent Paralanguage Concurring With Ideation And Connexion

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 11):

Ideational paralanguage is ‘mimetic’, concurring with IDEATION and CONNEXION systems;

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is the authors' rebranding of the ideational dimension of Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language, a type that can be deployed with or without spoken language:

	semantics	kinetic expression
ideational	phenomena: elemental (& configurational?)	ø eg drawing shapes,  mimicking movements with hands

[2] To be clear, as Cléirigh originally observed:

When used in the absence of spoken language, this type of body language is called mime, and it is mimetic in this sense.

[3] The claim here is that the semogenesis of ideational paralanguage is similar to the semogenesis of Martin's discourse semantic systems of IDEATION and CONNEXION.  However, the problem here is that these systems are neither ideational or semantic.  These systems are Martin's rebrandings of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) lexicogrammatical systems of the textual metafunction: lexical cohesion (IDEATION) and cohesive conjunction (CONNEXION) — both of which, however, are  indeed confused with aspects of the ideational metafunction, as demonstrated here and here.  So the  proposed "concurrence" here is actually between textual grammar and ideational paralanguage.

In any case, as will be seen, the authors provide no examples of gestures realising CONNEXION features, although there is an instance of cohesive conjunction their data, which the authors misinterpret as an 'emblem'.

As will also be seen, the authors provide no examples of gestures realising features of three systems of IDEATION (Martin & Rose 2007: 76): taxonomic relations, nuclear relations or activity sequences.  Instead, the examples provided are all instances of gestures realising elemental or configurational phenomena (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999), in line with Cléirigh's original model.

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 Cléirigh's Work As The Authors' Work

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 8, 6):

Sonovergent paralanguage converges with the prosodic phonology of spoken language (Halliday 1967, 1970; Halliday and Greaves 2008; Smith and Greaves 2015). From an interpersonal perspective, it resonates with tone and involves a body part (e.g. eyebrows or arms) moving up and down in tune with pitch movement in a tone group (TONE and marked salience). From a textual perspective it involves a body part (e.g. hands, head) beating in sync with the periodicity of speech – which might involve beats aligned with a salient syllable of a foot, the tonic syllable of a tone group, or a gesture co-extensive with a tone group (i.e. in sync with TONALITY, TONICITY or RHYTHM). An outline of this sonovergent paralanguage is presented in Table 4.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, 'sonovergent' paralanguage is the authors' rebranding of Cléirigh's 'linguistic' body language, justified on the basis that the invented word 'sonovergent' is more transparent.  As previously explained, linguistic body language, as the name implies, is "convergent" with language itself and differs from language only in its mode of expression — the opposite of the authors' claim.  As Cléirigh originally elaborated:

	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

* also: rolling of the eyes for tone 5.

[2] This is misleading.  Here the authors elaborate the details of Cléirigh's model of linguistic body language — see [1] — as if it is their own development of it as sonovergent paralanguage.  Proof that the omission of attribution is not accidental is provided by the misleading claim (p3) identified earlier which primes the reader for the interpretation of this work as the author's innovation:

We will in fact suggest that SFL’s tone group, analysed for rhythm and tone, provides an essential unit of analysis for work on paralanguage as far as questions of synchronicity across modalities are concerned.