Paralanguage As Language Expression

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 26-7, 28):

In this model, the content form of face-to-face linguistic communication can be realised as phonology (of spoken language) or sign (including the sign languages of deaf communities and the ‘emblems’ of hearing ones), plus in both cases sonovergent and semovergent paralanguage; and for many languages we have a graphological system used for written communication. This leaves us with the terminological challenge of how best to name the sound quality and gestural resources we have been calling paralanguage in this paper (since they wouldn’t be para- anymore); we will not attempt to improve on our usage here. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, content form is form, not function, and only refers to grammatical forms (clause, phrase/group, word, morpheme).  In terms of SFL theory, the authors here confuse 'form' with 'plane' (the level of symbolic abstraction that includes the strata of semantics and lexicogrammar).

[2] Here the authors reduce the expression systems of Sign languages to mere emblems, such as the thumbs-up sign and the middle finger salute.  To be clear, Sign languages are languages, and so, tri-stratal, and their gestural systems realise the lexicogrammar, just as phonological systems realise the lexicogrammar of spoken languages.  Emblems, on the other hand, are bi-stratal signs, and so their expressions only realise meaning directly, without the considerable semogenic power that a stratum of grammatical systems provides.  This is why emblems are types of epilinguistic body language in Cléirigh's model.

[3] To be clear, the expression systems of sonovergent paralanguage (Cléirigh's linguistic body language) only realise the linguistic content that prosodic phonology realises.  That is, it cannot realise the linguistic content that articulatory phonology realises, such as lexical items.  So the authors are seriously mistaken in presenting sonovergent paralanguage as an alternative to the entire phonological system.

[4] As previously explained, the claim that semovergent paralanguage (Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language) is an alternative to phonology and graphology is falsified by any clause that cannot be realised in semovergent paralanguage, such as the Leo Szilard quote:

A scientist's aim in a discussion with his colleagues is not to persuade, but to clarify.

To be clear, no grammatical structures can be realised in epilinguistic expressions (semovergent paralanguage) because epilinguistic semiosis is bi-stratal, not tri-stratal, and so expressions realise meaning directly, without the considerable semogenic power that a stratum of grammatical systems provides.  It is the absence of a grammar that the parlour game Charades exploits.

[5] To be clear, the authors began the paper by rebranding Cléirigh's model of body language as their model of paralanguage, and now, having satisfied themselves that their paralanguage is not paralanguage, the authors shy away from rebranding it with a more appropriate term, such as body language.

The Argument That Paralanguage Is An Expression System Of Language

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 26-7, 28):

But what about the stem -language which para- is prefixed to? The drift of consensus in gesture studies, as reviewed and promoted by Fricke (Fricke 2013) appears to be towards treating aspects of what we have been calling paralanguage here as part of language (in fact as part of grammar in Fricke’s work). From the perspective of SFL this argues for a re-interpretation of the taxonomy in Fig. 44 above as Table 6 below, with paralanguage positioned not alongside language but as part of its expression form.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, consensus is not argument, and to present it as argument is the logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum.

[2] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL, Fricke (2013) provides no argument with regard to theorising in SFL, because she does not proceed from the same theoretical assumptions as SFL.  That is, Fricke operates with a different conception of grammar, and a different conception what constitutes inclusion in a grammar, as the following quote (op. cit.: 734) makes clear:

[3] To be clear, the claim that paralanguage is an alternative to phonology, graphology and the expression systems of Sign languages is easily falsified by the fact that the following clause can be realised by genuinely linguistic expression systems, but not by Martin's semovergent paralanguage:

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.

To be clear, in SFL, to be part of language, a semiotic system has to be systematically related to the grammar (Halliday 1985/9: 30).  This is why Cléirigh's linguistic body language ("sonovergent paralanguage") is called linguistic — because its gestures realise the same grammatical features as prosodic phonology, differing only in the parts of the body used to express them.

Epilinguistic body language ("semovergent paralanguage"), on the other hand, is not systematically related to the grammar, and like all semiotic systems other than language, is bi-stratal, not tri-stratal, which is why, unlike genuinely linguistic expression systems, it cannot realise the Einstein quote above.

∞

It is instructive to consider the overall argument of this paper:

• Firstly, Cléirigh's types of body language were rebranded as types of Martin's paralanguage, and then misunderstood and misapplied.
• Second, gestures realising numbers (claimed to be examples Kendon's emblems) were claimed to be expressions of language, not paralanguage.
• Finally, all paralanguage was claimed to be expressions of language (because people using other theories agree that it is).

To be clear, the reasons why the authors have interpreted their paralanguage as expressions of language are because

• linguistic body language ("sonovergent paralanguage") is language, and 
• the authors have confused intersemiotic relations ('convergence') with intrasemiotic stratification (realisation) and 
• have set out with the narrow intention to relate the expressions of epilinguistic body language ("semovergent paralanguage") to Martin's discourse semantic systems (his rebrandings of Halliday's speech function and cohesion).

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.

What Sonovergent Paralanguage Does

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 25):

Sonovergent systems enact interpersonal meaning in tune with and compose textual meaning in sync with the prosodic phonology of language;

Blogger Comments:

The claims here are that:

• sonovergent paralanguage and prosodic phonology are 'in tune' in enacting interpersonal meaning, and
• sonovergent paralanguage and prosodic phonology are 'in sync' in composing textual meaning.

The problems here are as follows.

Firstly, prosodic phonology doesn't enact interpersonal meaning, it realises the wording that realises interpersonal meaning. By the same token, prosodic phonology doesn't compose textual meaning, it realises the wording that realises textual meaning.

Secondly, Cléirigh's linguistic body language (sonovergent paralanguage) is a stratified semiotic system, not merely an expression plane system, like prosodic phonology.

Thirdly, (stratified) sonovergent paralanguage doesn't enact interpersonal meaning; it enacts intersubjective relations as interpersonal meaning.  By the same token, (stratified) sonovergent paralanguage doesn't compose textual meaning; it organises ideational and interpersonal meaning as textual meaning.

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.

The Notion That Semovergence Implies Sonovergence

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 20-1):

It is probably safe to say that whenever semovergent paralanguage is deployed, it will be coordinated with TONALITY, TONICITY and RHYTHM; this is tantamount to arguing that semovergence implies sonovergence. Sonovergent paralanguage on the other hand can be deployed without semovergence, through gestures in tune with or in sync with prosodic phonology (but no more).

An important exception to these principles is what is commonly referred to as mime. In terms of our model mime is semovergent paralanguage that does not accompany language, an apparent contradiction in terms.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors have provided no evidence in support of this bare assertion, as the posts on semovergent paralanguage on this blog demonstrate.  This is merely a reassertion of their earlier claim (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.

[2] As previously explained, "sonovergent" paralanguage (Cléirigh's linguistic body language) is the direct opposite of "sonovergent" because the expression plane is where it differs from language.  The reason Cléirigh called it linguistic body language is because it realises the same content as prosodic phonology.

[3] Here the authors present Cléirigh's theorising as an observation made in terms of "their" model. Cf. Cléirigh's original definition of epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage):

These are body language systems which, like pictorial systems, are made possible by the transition into language, but which are not systematically related to the lexicogrammar of language. When used in the absence of spoken language, this type of body language is called mime, and it is mimetic in this sense.

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.

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

Taxonomy Of Sonovergent And Semovergent Paralanguage

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 20, 24):

Multidimensionality (multiplying meaning)

The sonovergent and semovergent paralinguistic systems discussed thus far are outlined in Fig. 38 (including cross-references to Cléirigh’s original terminology).

Blogger Comments:

This is potentially misleading.  To be clear, this taxonomy simply represents Cléirigh's original model with:

1. body language rebranded as paralanguage,
2. linguistic (body language) rebranded as sonovergent (paralanguage),
3. epilinguistic (body language) rebranded as semovergent (paralanguage), and
4. protolinguistic (body language) omitted altogether.

However, as demonstrated in previous posts, the authors seriously misunderstand and misapply the model they are rebranding here as their own.

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.

The Claim That Units Of Speech Rhythm Realise Elements Of Writing Pedagogy

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

As far as longer wave lengths of information flow are concerned,²³ our vlogger is seated and so whole body movement from one location to another is not a factor (as it would be for example for a lecturer roaming to and fro across a stage; cf. Hood 2011).

²³ van Leeuwen (1985, 1992) and Martinec (2002) argue that SFL’s phonological hierarchy can be pushed up several wave lengths beyond the tone group and their work suggests that higher level rhythm would converge with higher level periodicity in Martin's framework.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the claim here is that proposed higher level phonological units "converge" with Martin's discourse semantic functions of macro-Theme, hyper-Theme, hyper-New and macro-New.  There are several obvious theoretical inconsistencies here.

The over-arching inconsistency is that the authors are proposing that patterns of speech rhythm correspond to pedagogical suggestions on how to write.  This is because Martin's four discourse semantic functions are actually rebrandings of introductory paragraph, topic sentence, paragraph summary and text summary, as previously explained.

A second inconsistency is that speech rhythm can only identify potential New information, and bears no systematic relation to thematicity.

A third inconsistency is that the use of gesture to realise New information is linguistic body language ("sonovergent" paralanguage), not epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

A fourth inconsistency is the matching of structural units (wavelengths beyond the tone group) with elements of structure (Themes and News).

A fifth inconsistency, in the authors' own terms, is the use of their term for a relation between the same stratum of different semiotic systems, converge, for an interstratal relation within language.

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 Need For A Metalanguage For Facial Expression

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 18, 29):

Further work on this interpersonal aural dimension of paralanguage, drawing on van Leeuwen 1999, is beyond the scope of our current research.²¹ 

²¹ We also need to acknowledge that a metalanguage for facial expression, in some sense comparable in specificity to SFL work on attitude in the APPRAISAL framework, remains to be developed.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in Cléirigh's original model of body language, facial expressions can function:

1. protolinguistically (e.g. realising emotions), 
2. linguistically (e.g. realising features of KEY), or 
3. epilinguistically (e.g. realising 'uncertain' MODALITY). 

The authors (p29), however, have dismissed the notion of protolinguistic body language, on a misunderstanding, as previously demonstrated here, and reinterpreted it as either non-semiotic behaviour ("somasis") — which they nevertheless interpret as if semiotic — or as interpersonal epilinguistic body language ("semovergent" paralanguage).

Mistaking Language (Intonation) For Paralanguage (Voice Quality)

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 18):

Voice quality was noted in section “Sonovergent paralanguage” above in relation to the sing/song pitch (high then low) movement the vlogger uses in her last four tone groups to close down her hair dye narrative. From the perspective of APPRAISAL the sound quality resonates with her resignation. Further work on this interpersonal aural dimension of paralanguage, drawing on van Leeuwen 1999, is beyond the scope of our current research.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here the authors mistake prosodic features (the TONE sequence 3^13^3^1–) for a paralinguistic feature ("sing/song" voice quality).  Halliday (1985: 30-1) explains the difference as follows:

 

Moreover, if what the authors regard as "sing/song" pitch:

//3 hopefully / next ↑time I will 
//1 get my / ↓hair colour / back 
//3 um / but for / ↑now 
//3 this will / ↓do //

is compared with an accurate phonological analysis:

//3 hopefully / next time I will
//13 get my / hair colour / back
//3 um /but for / now 
//1- this will / do //

It can be seen that:

• the first ↑ corresponds to the low-rising pitch of tone 3,
• the first ↓ corresponds to the falling pitch of tone 1,
• the second ↑ corresponds to the low-rising pitch of tone 3, and
• the second ↓ corresponds to the narrow falling pitch of tone 1–

[2] To be clear, it is only the final TONE selection, tone 1–, that coincides with the APPRAISAL that the authors interpret as 'resignation' (this will do).  In SFL theory, the selection of tone 1– with declarative MOOD realises the KEY features 'mild or expected'.  Halliday (1970: 31):

Meaning of secondary tones In some cases the difference between a pair, or set, of secondary tones is mainly a matter of 'key', the degree of forcefulness or emotional intensity of the utterance. …

1. (medium), neutral; 1+ (wide), strong or unexpected; 1– (narrow), mild or expected.

On this basis, what the authors regard as voice quality "resonating" with 'resignation' is, in the authors' terms — though unknown to them — actually an instance of a secondary tone realising a feature of GRADUATION.

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.

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'.

The Meaning Of A Smile

Martin & Zappavigna (2019: 16, 17):

As outlined by Martin and White (2005) attitude may not be explicitly inscribed in language, but invoked by ideational choices a speaker expects a reaction to. We introduced an example of this in section “Sonovergent paralanguage” above, as the vlogger introduces the good news that her hair dye is back in stock at Target. Her smiling face makes explicit the affect that her language does not (Fig. 25).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misrepresents the metafunctions as separate modules, instead of complementary perspectives on meaning.  Choices that invoke attitude are interpersonal choices.  Moreover, a speaker can "expect a reaction" to ideational meaning in the absence of attitude.

[2] Here again the authors deploy the logical fallacy of 'begging the question' (petitio principi), since they assume the point their argument needs to establish, namely that the speaker's smile realises an assessment: the goodness of the 'news that her hair dye is back in stock at Target' (the authors' interpretation, not the speaker's words).

To be clear, the speaker's smile coincides only with the word Target, on which the tonic falls, marking it as the focus of New information.  So the timing of the smile is an instance of linguistic body language (Martin's sonovergent body language), and functions textually.

This also means that, if an assessment is being realised by the smile, it is solely an assessment of Target.  However, no assessment is being made here, the smile simply realises the speaker's positive emotion, as will be argued below.

To be clear, a smile is a physiological process that manifests a state of consciousness: a token of a senser's sensing, to adapt Halliday & Matthiessen's (1999: 210) phrase.  On Cléirigh's model, such behaviours are the raw material from which protolanguage develops. For example, in rainbow lorikeets, semiotic expressions of anger function socio-semiotically as expressions of the regulatory microfunction ('I want you-&-me'), in Halliday's model of protolanguage.

On Cléirigh's model, the speaker's smile is thus interpreted as an instance of the personal microfunction of protolinguistic body language, realising a positive emotion.  By the same token, the speaker's eye gaze is interpreted as an instance of the interactional microfunction of protolinguistic body language, signifying engagement with the viewer.

		meaning	kinetic expression
action	regulatory	I want, refuse, threaten	ø eg raised fist, glower
	instrumental	give me, I invite you	ø eg extended hand
reflection	interactional	togetherness, bonding	ø eg mutual eye gaze
	personal	emotions	ø eg smiling face

(adapted from Matthiessen 2007: 5)

(Note that emoticons (emojis) are thus epilinguistic (pictorial) reconstruals of protolinguistic body language.)

So, contrary to the author's claims, the smile does not realise an attitudinal assessment (AFFECT), and constitutes an instance of protolinguistic body language, not epilinguistic body language ('semovergent paralanguage').

[3] As argued above, this is not true.  Moreover, if it were true, it would be an instance of 'semovergent paralanguage' "resonating" with what is not actually said.