Abstract:This paper offers a multimodal perspective on how identities are performed and negotiated in discourse, concentrating on the interaction of language and body language within a particular genre, Youth Justice Conferencing. These conferences operate as a diversionary form of sentencing in the juvenile justice system of New South Wales, Australia. Typically, they involve a young person who has committed an offense coming face to face with the victim of their crime, in the presence of family members, community wor… Show more
“…APPRAISAL, as we came to call it, would there complement the interactive turn-taking focus of those two MOOD based systems, highlighting the '-personal' dimension of interpersonal meaning. That said, we of course recognised that feelings are expressed to be shared; they are a resource for bonding (Martin et al 2013). So their 'inter-personality' is crucial to understanding their use.…”
In this autobiographical essay I reflect on my training in linguistics and the way it affected my interpretation and development of SFL theory. In particular I am concerned to show how I tried to help SFL evolve, accumulating previous understandings into a model with additional theoretical architecture taking descriptive responsibility for a wider range of linguistic data. This evolution is illustrated with respect to my work on discourse semantics (as part of stratified content plane), genre (as part of a stratified context plane) and appraisal (a discourse semantic framework for analysing feeling).
OrientationIn November 2012 I was invited to Shanghai to attend the launch of my collected papers by Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press. As part of the proceedings, I was asked to give a lecture about the development of my work, and to participate in an interview about the evolution of systemic functional linguistics (hereafter SFL). This paper is based on those presentations, during which I tried to foreground the theme of evolution -with respect to some of the ways in which I have attempted to expand the theoretical and descriptive focus of SFL, moving beyond the clause towards considerations of text and context.
Singulars and regionsIn order to frame this discussion I will draw upon the recent ongoing dialogue between SFL and the social realist theory articulated by Bernstein (e.g.
“…APPRAISAL, as we came to call it, would there complement the interactive turn-taking focus of those two MOOD based systems, highlighting the '-personal' dimension of interpersonal meaning. That said, we of course recognised that feelings are expressed to be shared; they are a resource for bonding (Martin et al 2013). So their 'inter-personality' is crucial to understanding their use.…”
In this autobiographical essay I reflect on my training in linguistics and the way it affected my interpretation and development of SFL theory. In particular I am concerned to show how I tried to help SFL evolve, accumulating previous understandings into a model with additional theoretical architecture taking descriptive responsibility for a wider range of linguistic data. This evolution is illustrated with respect to my work on discourse semantics (as part of stratified content plane), genre (as part of a stratified context plane) and appraisal (a discourse semantic framework for analysing feeling).
OrientationIn November 2012 I was invited to Shanghai to attend the launch of my collected papers by Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press. As part of the proceedings, I was asked to give a lecture about the development of my work, and to participate in an interview about the evolution of systemic functional linguistics (hereafter SFL). This paper is based on those presentations, during which I tried to foreground the theme of evolution -with respect to some of the ways in which I have attempted to expand the theoretical and descriptive focus of SFL, moving beyond the clause towards considerations of text and context.
Singulars and regionsIn order to frame this discussion I will draw upon the recent ongoing dialogue between SFL and the social realist theory articulated by Bernstein (e.g.
“…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 andMartin (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).…”
This paper develops a framework for analysing paralanguage, initially inspired by systemic functional linguistic (hereafter SFL) research on early child language development. A distinction is drawn between non-semiotic behaviour (somasis) and meaning (semiosis), and within semiosis between language and paralanguage (using the term paralanguage to refer to semiosis dependent on language and realised through both sound quality and body language, the latter including facial expression, gesture, posture and movement). Within paralanguage a distinction is drawn between sonovergent resources in sync with or in tune with the prosodic phonology of spoken language, and semovergent resources supporting the ideational, interpersonal and textual meaning resources of spoken language's content plane. The paper closes with a brief discussion of the intermodal relations among language, paralanguage and other modalities of communication. Embodied meaning In this paper we introduce a social semiotic framework for analysing paralanguage. Our approach was inspired by Chris Cléirigh's contributions 1 to New South Wales Youth Justice Conferencing research consolidated in Zappavigna and Martin (2018) and Martin and Zappavigna (2018). 2 Cléirigh's work drew on Matthiessen's synopses (Matthiessen 2004; Matthiessen 2007; Matthiessen 2009) of Systemic Functional Linguistic (hereafter SFL) research on early child language development. Following Matthiessen (2009) we use the term paralanguage to refer to gestural resources arranged along what McNeill (1992) christened as 'Kendon's Continuum' (gesticulation, pantomime and emblems), along with the vocalisations outlined in van Leeuwen (1999) not usually included in linguistic descriptions of the segmental and prosodic phonology of spoken language (timbre, tempo, tension, pitch range etc.). In this paper however we will consider only gestural systems. There are of course many ways to classify gestural resources. Kendon 2004 (Chapter 6) provides a thorough historical survey. The most useful vantage point from which to compare classifications is Kendon's Continuum. The introductory chapters in McNeill (McNeill 2000a, 2000b; McNeill 2012) include clear presentations of the model outlined in Fig. 1 below (taken from Sekine et al. 2013). We will cross-reference our work to this model as we present our framework, setting aside the sign languages of deaf communities (ASL, BSL, Auslan, LSF etc.) since these are languages in their own right (themselves involving paralanguage; Johnston 2018).
“…Because people are generally more aware of the criminal justice system than they are of RJ (Paul, ), perhaps the most common approach to describing RJ has been to describe it by what it ostensibly is not, drawing on a figure–ground relationship that situates RJ as the figure against the backdrop of retributive justice (Zehr, ). Such contrasts usually establish RJ as a more constructive alternative to the conventional court system characterized by “retributive justice” (Bashir, ; Martin, Zappavigna, Dwyer, & Cléirigh, ; Snow & Sanger, ; Wood & Suzuki, ). For example, Armour and Umbreit () define RJ as analternative to the system that advocates retributive justice [that] seeks to elevate the role of crime victims and community members; hold offenders directly accountable to the people they have violated; and restore, to the extent possible, the emotional and material losses of victims by providing a range of opportunities for dialogue, negotiation, and problem solving (p. 123).…”
As the research and practice of restorative justice has grown, conversations have been ongoing about how to define and evaluate such practices. In this conceptual review, we argue for the utility and importance of adopting a communication perspective (Pearce, 1989, Communication and the human condition. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.) for defining, evaluating, and practicing restorative justice. We begin by describing a communication perspective before reviewing scholarly literature regarding defining and evaluating restorative justice. We also illustrate how a communication perspective can prompt useful questions about defining, evaluating, facilitating, and administering restorative justice. We conclude with a discussion of implications for research, facilitation, and organizational administration.
