Association As Participation, Accord, And Coordination Deconstructed

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 208):

We’re now in position to summarise the metafunctional perspective on association presented above. From the perspective of ideational meaning, the key variable is participation – to what extent to people share understandings about what to do and who or what is involved? From the perspective of interpersonal meaning the key variable is accord – to what extent are feelings shared, explicitly and implicitly, about what is going on, and how cooperative are speakers where interaction is involved? From the perspective of textual meaning the key variable is coordination – to what extent do speakers smooth the flow of discourse by taking for granted information that is shared? Table 4 summarises this metafunctional factoring of association as participation, accord, and coordination.

 Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, 'association' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[2] As previously explained, 'participation' is the contextual parameter of field confused with the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[3] As previously explained, 'accord' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[4] As previously explained, 'coordination' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Coordination'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 206):

From a textual perspective, we are concerned with what we will generalise as coordination – involving taken for granted understandings smoothing the flow of discourse based on the experience of ‘kith and kin’ spending time together, and the relative control over the textual organisation of a text. Homophoric reference is a strong marker of taken-for-granted understandings of association since it identifies entities that are not necessarily accessible from the co-text or material context of an utterance. Familiar examples from domestic situations would be presuming reference such as the fridge, the car, the bathroom, the yard, and so on (where it would be ridiculous to say there’s a fridge in the kitchen; grab some beer from it, unless there were another fridge elsewhere that might be confused with it). As far as proliferation is concerned, the more that can be presumed, the closer the relationship.

Reviewer Comments:

For the authors, 'coordination' is interpersonal meaning viewed from a textual perspective. That is, 'coordination' is 'enacting social relations' viewed from the perspective of 'creating information flow'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'coordination' is simply the textual creation of information flow, misunderstood as tenor. The textual perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Accord'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 205):

From an interpersonal perspective we are concerned with what we will generalise as accord – i.e. sharing feelings about people and things and cooperating in dialogue. Shared feelings may involve emotional reactions to triggers of various kinds, judgements of people’s character and behaviour and the value of ‘things’ (including natural phenomena, books, films, songs, performances, and so on).

Reviewer Comments:

For the authors, 'accord' is interpersonal meaning viewed from an interpersonal perspective. That is, 'accord' is 'enacting social relations' viewed from the perspective of 'enacting social relations'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'accord' is simply the interpersonal enactment of social relations, misunderstood here as tenor. The interpersonal perspective taken here is on language itself, not on interpersonal meaning.

The Misunderstandings Behind 'Participation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 204):

From an ideational perspective we are concerned with what we will generalise as participation – i.e. undertaking or discussing some domestic or institutionalised activity (e.g. at home, at work, in recreation, in worship). These activities involve shared knowledge about what to do and who or what is involved. The more you understand the more you are part of the group. As far as language is concerned, a lot of such knowledge is encoded in specialised or technical lexis that only insiders can follow and whose development depends on informal and formal mentoring practices.

 

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors characterise 'participation' as an ideational ('construing experience') perspective on social relations (tenor). But

• undertaking some domestic or institutionalised activity is material, not semiotic;
• discussing some domestic or institutionalised activity is the languaging that realises a field;
• knowledge about what to do and who is involved is ideational meaning;
• knowledge encoded in specialised or technical lexis is ideational meaning;

[2] To be clear, the more you know about SFL Theory, the less you are part of the group.🎄

The Metafunctional And Stratal Misunderstandings Behind 'Association'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 204):

Martin (1992: 529, 532) provides more detail on the language systems in play as far as Poynton’s patterns of usage are concerned, concentrating on interpersonal systems. But even there textual systems (e.g. rhythm, homophora) and ideational systems (e.g. agency, technical lexis) are brought in to provide a more complete picture. This suggests that as far as social relations are concerned, a multi-functional perspective will prove useful. Below we suggest a framework for what we will refer to as association – comprising ideational (participation), interpersonal (accord), and textual (coordination) patterns of usage as interlocutors enact relations of status and contact with one another.

Reviewer Comments:

The authors' argument here is as follows: 

Premiss 1: The tenor of a context is realised by textual and ideational language as well as interpersonal language.

Premiss 2: This is a problem for context-metafunction resonance.

Conclusion: The solution is to propose that there are ideational, interpersonal and textual components of interpersonal language, and to locate the resultant ensemble, 'association', in tenor at the level of context.

The problem with Premiss 2 is that it is false, because it misunderstands context-metafunction resonance as requiring that tenor only have implications for interpersonal meaning. The problem with the conclusion is that it misunderstands both stratification and metafunction. As previously explained for the authors' framework of 'mass', the authors' framework of 'association' confuses the level of context (tenor) with the level of language (interpersonal meaning), and misunderstands one metafunction, the interpersonal, to include all three metafunctions.

Mass As Technicality, Iconisation, And Aggregation Deconstructed

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 203):

We’re now in position to summarise the metafunctional perspective on mass presented above. 

From the perspective of ideational meaning, the key variable is technicality – to what extent is meaning distilled as technical terms arranged as uncommon sense property, classification, composition, and activity? 

From the perspective of interpersonal meaning the key variable is iconisation – to what extent is knowledge charged with values shared by members of a community? 

From the perspective of textual meaning the key variable is aggregation – to what extent does a text consolidate meaning, prospectively or retrospectively, as it unfolds? 

Table 3 summarises this metafunctional factoring of mass as technicality, iconisation, and aggregation.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, 'mass' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

[2] As previously explained, 'technicality' is the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

[3] As previously explained, 'iconisation' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

[4] As previously explained, 'aggregation' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Aggregation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 201):

Turning to textual meaning, another important dimension of mass is what we refer to as aggregation – a process whereby texts package their presentation of knowledge and values.

Reviewer Comments:

For the authors, 'aggregation' is ideational meaning viewed from a textual perspective. That is, 'aggregation' is 'construing experience' viewed from the perspective of 'creating information flow'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'aggregation' is simply a textual creation of information flow, misunderstood as field. The textual perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Iconisation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 200-1):

As a popular science writer, Mukherjee does not of course leave us there. He also has the task of celebrating the achievements of the scientists involved and their discoveries. This means we need to bring interpersonal meaning into the picture – to show how value is added to knowledge via a process we refer to as iconisation (Martin 2010). 

… In general terms, the point we are making here is that specialised knowledge involves both understandings and their value.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] For the authors, 'iconisation' is ideational meaning viewed from an interpersonal perspective. That is, 'iconisation' is 'construing experience' viewed from the perspective of 'enacting social relations'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'iconisation' is simply an interpersonal enactment of social relations, misunderstood as field. The interpersonal perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

[2] To be clear, here the authors present Halliday's model as their own discovery. For example, Halliday (2003 [1992]: 384):

But the full creative power of an act of meaning arises from the fact that language both construes and enacts. It is not only a way of thinking about the world; it is also, at one and the same time, a way of acting on the world — which means, of course, acting on the other people in it.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Technicality'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 200):

From an ideational perspective we are concerned with technicality – in particular the nature of more and less common-sense knowledge in discourse. Mukherjee (2022), in his popular science celebration of cell biology, introduces readers to seminal work on cell composition …

In doing so Mukharjee moves readers from common sense observations about differences between organisms and their substance to the uncommon sense understanding that the building blocks of all life are cells. From the perspective of field, he construes specialised composition.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] For the authors, 'technicality' is ideational meaning viewed from an ideational perspective. That is, 'technicality' is 'construing experience' viewed from the perspective of 'construing experience'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'technicality' describes the ideational meaning construed of experience, misunderstood as field. The ideational perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

[2] As previously explained, such composition hierarchies are not field, but construals of experience in the language that realises a field. The misunderstanding here is of stratification: confusing context and language

The Metafunctional And Stratal Misunderstandings Behind 'Mass'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 199):

Responding to Maton’s characterisation of semantic density as involving ‘formal definitions, empirical descriptions or feelings, political sensibilities, taste, values, morals, affiliations’, we have revisited work on technicality in an effort to broaden SFL’s conception of specialised knowledge. 

In terms of SFL’s concept of metafunction this means extending the focus on ideational meaning to include interpersonal and textual perspectives as well. As noted above, taken together, the contributions from the different metafunctions are referred to as mass (introduced in Martin [2017] and further elaborated with respect to the analysis of infographics in Martin and Unsworth [2024]).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in taking a 'language-based approach to cognition', SFL models 'knowledge' as meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: ix-x):

It seems to us that our dialogue is relevant to current debates in cognitive science. In one sense, we are offering it as an alternative to mainstream currents in this area, since we are saying that cognition "is" (that is, can most profitably be modelled as) not thinking but meaning: the "mental" map is in fact a semiotic map, and "cognition" is just a way of talking about language. In modelling knowledge as meaning, we are treating it as a linguistic construct: hence, as something that is construed in the lexicogrammar. Instead of explaining language by reference to cognitive processes, we explain cognition by reference to linguistic processes.

[2] To be clear,  this "extension" of the focus on ideational meaning misunderstands SFL’s concept of metafunction. To paraphrase Halliday (2003 [1995]: 414-5):

• the ideational metafunction is the function of language in construing experience as meaning;
• the interpersonal metafunction is the function of language in enacting social relations as meaning; and
• the textual metafunction is the function of language in creating the flow of information.

In this model, ideational meaning does not "include contributions" from interpersonal and textual "perspectives", any more than the TRANSITIVITY system of the clause "includes contributions" from interpersonal and textual "perspectives". MOOD and THEME are Interpersonal and textual "perspectives", but on the clause, not on the ideational wording of the clause.

[3] To be clear, defining 'mass' in terms of the meaning of language and locating it in the contextual parameter of field is a contradiction in terms.

Three Of The Misunderstandings Behind 'Mass', 'Association' And 'Presence'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 199):

In this section we turn from realisation to instantiation and introduce a multifunctional perspective on some of the traditional concerns of field, tenor, and mode studies in previous work. 

• Re-visiting traditional work on field leads us to a multi-functional perspective on knowledge-building we refer to as mass (Martin 2017); 
• re-visiting traditional work on tenor leads us to a multi-functional perspective on enacting social relations we refer to as association; and 
• re-visiting mode leads us to a multifunctional perspective on organising information flow we refer to as presence (Martin and Matruglio 2013). … 

We propose mass, association, and presence as principles of co-selection during the process of instantiation – which we believe provide a partial account of the phenomenon of permeability in Hasan’s work as introduced above.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, from this point on, the theoretical confusions in this paper multiply.

[1] The authors here continue their confusion of context with language:

• 'mass' confuses field (context) with "knowledge building" (ideational language + semogenesis);
• 'association' confuses tenor (context) with enacting social relations (interpersonal language); and
• 'presence' confuses mode (context) with organising information flow (textual language).

[2] It will be seen that these multifunctional perspectives involve viewing each of the metafunctions from the perspective of each of the metafunctions. A grammatical example of this approach would be to view clause transitivity from ideational, interpersonal and textual perspectives. To be clear, it is the clause itself that is viewed from metafunctional perspectives, not any of the metafunctional strands of the clause.

[3] As previously explained, instantiation is the relation between potential and instance at a given level of symbolic abstraction. As such, variables that are said to be at the level of context — mass, association and presence — cannot be principles of instantiation for the level of language. That is, here the authors misunderstand instantiation as a relation between context and language. If mass, association and presence are said to be potential at the level of context, then they themselves are instantiated at the level of context.

[4] To be clear, 'permeability' here simply means that options in one parameter of context, say field, can preselect or exclude options in another, say tenor or mode. The same phenomenon occurs in language where an option in THEME, say, preselects or excludes options in MOOD or TRANSITIVITY.

Moving From The Misunderstandings Of Realisation To The Misunderstandings Of Instantiation

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198-9):

As for tenor and field, these systems of mode – DISTRIBUTION, JUNCTURE, and PULSING – offer a model of the resources drawn on to organise text, rather than a common-sense classification of different modes. This model of mode as a resource is considerably less developed than that for field (Doran and Martin 2021) and for tenor (Doran et al. 2024), but it nonetheless offers a means of maintaining the context-metafunction resonance that has underpinned SFL’s conception of the relationship between the internal and external functionality of language.

Of course, this does not mean that other considerations often grouped under field, tenor, and mode (e.g. degrees of technicality, social contact, and context-dependence) do not need to be accounted for. Rather, it means that they need to be conceptualised in a theoretically clearer manner. To do this, we propose a perspective from instantiation that treats these and other variables as coupling principles – i.e. as principles for the co-selection and arrangement of choices in language.

 

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously shown, these "mode" systems all derive from misunderstanding context as language.

[2] As previous shown, the authors misunderstand context-metafunction resonance as requiring that a contextual parameter only implicate linguistic systems of the counterpart metafunction. On this misunderstanding, the field of logic implicating 'proposition' in the interpersonal system of the speech function would constitute a reduction in context-metafunction resonance.

Moreover, as previously shown, the authors themselves contribute to a "reduction of resonance" by interpreting exchange structure (interpersonal semantics) as a resource of mode (textual context).

[3] To be clear, instantiation is the relation between potential and instance at a given level of symbolic abstraction. As such, variables at one level, context, cannot be principles of instantiation for another level, language. That is, here the authors begin their misunderstanding of instantiation as a relation between context and language. This is the direct opposite of conceptualising context "in a theoretically clearer manner".

Confusing Mode With "Martin's" Text Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198):

Similarly, the use of text reference (Martin 1992), often coupled with semiotic entities (Hao 2020) and connexion resources, also indicates a distribution of information. In the following (constructed) example, the semiotic entity three main arguments points forward to the fact that a set of arguments are required for the full meaning of the section; the internal connexions First, Second, and Finally signal that each argument connects either forward or backward with the other arguments; and the text reference None of these arguments at the end, looks backwards by making clear that the information that is ‘not convincing’ is to be found earlier in the text. These resources all work together to distribute information throughout the text (while also working to demarcate and foreground different components of this information).

There have been three main arguments against students wearing uniforms. First, they dampens students’ individual expression. Second, uniforms are expensive. And third, they harken back to an old-fashioned time of rigid uniformity. None of these arguments are convincing.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with the text reference of Halliday & Hasan (1976: 52), and misleads by plagiaristically crediting Martin (1992) as its intellectual source.

[2] This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with Martin's logical discourse semantic system of connexion, which rebrands his confusion of Halliday's grammatical systems of cohesive conjunction (textual) and clause complexing (logical). Evidence here.

Confusing Mode With Endophoric Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198):

Distribution can also occur within texts. The clearest instance of this involves drawing on anaphora – whereby an instance refers backwards in a text, often via pronouns. In the following text, the teacher first puts forward the entity ‘nucleolus’, and then each subsequent reference uses it to indicate the information being sought is distributed across the text:

Phoricity resources such as those noted above are one of the key means of distributing information. But they are by no means the only resource for doing this. In the text above, the two questions put forward by the teacher and student: Do you know what the nucleolus is? And Isn’t that where it make ribosomes? also make clear that the information of the text is to be distributed – in this case that another move is needed for closure.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This simply confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with a linguistic system two strata below: the lexicogrammatical system of endophoric reference (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

[2] To be clear, here the authors propose that exchange structure (interpersonal semantics) is a resource of mode (textual context), which, as well as confusing context with language, contradicts their claim  that their model conforms to (their misunderstanding of) context-metafunction resonance,.

Confusing Mode With Ideational Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 197-8):

This contrasts with a number of instances at the beginning of the class, where the teacher is establishing what they are going to do. In these instances, marked in bold, the teacher is indicating that there is no relevant information elsewhere that is needed to follow what is going on – the information is not distributed but immediate.

What we’re going to do today is model a representation of mitosis as a point of reference to explain these stages. I’m going to give you some materials so when we jump into our groups you’re going to construct a model for the stages.

The immediacy of the information is established in three of these instances through presenting reference (Martin 1992) – a representation of mitosis, some materials, a model, where the indefinite Deictics indicate that these participants are being introduced and are not to be recovered from elsewhere in the text or the situation. The fourth possible instance, our groups, draws on homophora (Halliday and Hasan 1976); in this case the entity’s identity is presumed, and so does not need to be recovered from anywhere else.

Reviewer Comments:

This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with two misunderstandings of a linguistic system two strata below: the lexicogrammatical system of reference (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

On the one hand, Martin's 'presenting reference' misunderstands reference in the sense of ideational denotation; see the evidence here. On the other hand, the authors misunderstand what is not a reference item, the first person determiner our, as a homophoric reference item.

Confusing Mode With Exophoric Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 197):

Finally, mode offers resources for distributing information across a text, via a system called DISTRIBUTION. The basic distinction is between an instance of language that indicates that there is further information needed to understand what is being said (i.e. that the information is in some sense distributed) or that all the information is given in the immediate instance. 

Distribution of information occurs throughout the classroom example we have been looking at, where the teacher refers across modalities to the slides they are using (in bold below):

I have this image here of the cell undergoing mitosis for two replicated daughter cells. You’ve got here DNA replication with the cell cycle – what part is that called?

In this example, the teacher is specifying that the information needed is distributed between the spoken language and the slide they are looking at. She does this by drawing on exophoric reference to the infographic (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Martin 1992).

Reviewer Comments:

This simply confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with a linguistic system two strata below: the lexicogrammatical system of exophoric reference (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

Problems With The Mode System Of Pulsing

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 196-7):

In addition to chunking up the text, mode also functions as a resource for foregrounding and backgrounding information, through a system called PULSING. In the excerpt above, this is most clearly realised through the Hyper-Themes and Hyper-News which foreground the key meanings that occur. In this case, what is foregrounded is the ideational category of archaea as a branch of life in the Hyper-Theme and the eventual interpersonal vindication of this category and Woese in the Hyper-New:

And now the third branch: archaea.

[…]

But decades later, we have largely accepted, validated, and vindicated his theory, so that archaea are now classified as a distinct, third domain of living creatures.

Foregrounding of this kind is potentially realised through a range of systems including PERIODICITY in discourse semantics, THEME in lexicogrammar, INFORMATION and SALIENCE in phonology, as well as paralinguistic vocal features of SOUND QUALITY, including loudness, tenseness, pitch height (van Leeuwen 1999), the use of gestural beating (Ngo et al. 2022b) and salience within visual multimodal texts (Kress and van Leeuwen 2020). It offers a resource for composing texts in terms of pulses of prominence, foregrounding, and backgrounding information as a text flows.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This confuses mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with Martin's discourse semantic functions hyper-Theme (topic sentence) and hyper-New (paragraph summary), and labels the confusion as the mode system of PULSING.

[2] This confuses mode, context, with the linguistic systems that mark textual prominence, and misconstrues the lexicogrammatical systems of INFORMATION and LEXICAL SALIENCE as phonology (!). This basic misunderstanding has its origin in Martin (1992: 384), where INFORMATION is displaced to phonology and misaligned with the interpersonal metafunction (NEGOTIATION):

[3] For the misunderstandings and plagiarism in Ngo et al. (2022), see the very detailed review here.

The 'Arguable' Metafunctional Address Of Internal Connexion

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 195-6):

Indeed if we zoom out to an even longer stretch than we have here, the whole excerpt functions together with the previous sections on eukaryotes and prokaryotes as a single, larger chunk introducing what organisms are. This is suggested by the internal addition connexion And (which suggests a linking with the previous chunk) and the chain splitting the third branch (which, while introducing archaea and in doing so establishes a new participant chain) which in fact refer back to and illustrate similarity with the previous two branches. Importantly, this hierarchy of demarcation is developed not by a single discourse semantic system, such as PERIODICITY, IDENTIFICATION, or INTERNAL CONNEXION,¹¹ but by them all working together. And since these systems are all primarily concerned with organising texture, the resonance between textual metafunction and mode is sustained. Establishing hierarchies of demarcation also conforms to the general periodic structure of textual systems, whereby the same ‘meanings’ can be overlayed on top of each other at bigger of smaller stretches (Halliday 1979).

¹¹ The precise metafunctional address of internal CONNEXION, which we treat as a textual resource here, is arguable. Martin (1992) interprets it as ‘textual grammatical metaphor’, a position he retracts in Martin (2024) in his discussion of what he calls ‘coordination’ resources.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, mode is the part language is playing in terms of the culture. Chunks of information, on the other hand, are language, as too are Martin's discourse semantic systems, of PERIODICITY, IDENTIFICATION, and INTERNAL CONNEXION.

[2] This again misunderstands context-metafunction resonance as requiring that only textual systems realise the parameters of mode. One source of this misunderstanding is Martin's misunderstanding of metafunctions and strata as interacting modules. Martin (1992: 390, 488):

Each of the presentations of linguistic text forming resources considered above adopted a modular perspective. As far as English Text is concerned this has two main dimensions: stratification, and within strata, metafunction. …

The problem addressed is a fundamental concern of modular models of semiosis — namely, once modules are distinguished, how do they interface? What is the nature of the conversation among components?

[3] To be clear, the conjunction (now 'connexion') in Martin (1992: 179) is his logical system of the discourse semantic stratum, and it subsumes the internal variety:

However, this discourse semantic system is Martin's rebranding of the textual grammatical system of cohesive conjunction (Halliday & Hasan 1976), confused with the logical grammatical system of clause complexing (Halliday 1985). That is, the metafunctional address of this system is not 'arguable'; it is merely misunderstood by Martin and those taught by him.

Confusing Mode With Hyper-Theme

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 195):

Within this excerpt, there are other smaller demarcations. For example, in the first paragraph, the marked Theme In the mid-1970s, indicates that there will be a shift – in this case to a story about Carl Woese (who is introduced in this clause). The first sentence as a whole functions as a smaller Hyper-Theme for this story … 

This first paragraph tracks Woese’s argument, focusing primarily on Woese himself. The paragraph break then leads to a new Hyper-Theme that introduces other biologists’ perspectives (Many prominent biologists ridiculed or simply ignored Woese’s work) – which involves establishing a new participant chain involving countering authorities (Many prominent biologists, Ernsts Mayr, the biologist, The journal Science). Put in terms of the model of mode we are introducing here, each of the opening lines – starting with In the mid-1970s, For decades, and Many prominent biologists – all function to demarcate distinct chunks of information. But they do this within the larger chunk we have already established that focuses on archaea more broadly. This illustrates that there is not just a single linear chunking of information in a text, but rather that texts can be organised around a hierarchy of demarcation – whereby smaller chunks of information are organised within larger chunks of information.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, mode is the part language is playing in terms of the culture. Chunks of information, on the other hand, are language, as too is Martin's discourse semantic function of hyper-Theme, which is his rebranding of the notion of 'topic sentence' in writing pedagogy.

Confusing Mode With Hyper-New

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 194):

As we noted above, the opening sentence predicts that the following text will talk about archaea. This is done through participant tracking: the entity archaea is presented, and then referred to (in bold above) as this full branch of living beings and as archaea twice. In addition this entity is classified as not just some arcane microbe, an entire domain of life, and a whole living domain. The final reference to archaea occurs in the final clause archaea are now classified as a distinct, third domain of living creatures, that functions as a Hyper-New synthesising the point of the excerpt. This Hyper-New demarcates the boundary between this excerpt and the following text. But between the opening and closing sentences, the participant chain and classification (amongst other things), functions to sustain the chunk of information and make clear that we are still focusing in some sense on the same stretch of information.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, mode is the part language is playing in terms of the culture. Chunks of information, on the other hand, are language, as too is Martin's discourse semantic function of hyper-New, which is his rebranding of the notion of 'paragraph summary' in writing pedagogy.

Confusing Mode With Grammar And Discourse Semantics

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 193-4):

Mukherjee (2022: 68–69) draws on these resources in order to tell the story of the discovery of archaea we saw above. The excerpt we will explore follows reports of two of the branches of life: eukaryotes and prokaryotes. It begins by introducing the third branch archaea at the beginning of a new paragraph by saying:

And now the third branch: archaea (Mukherjee 2022: 68).

Before looking at the whole excerpt, we can note that this sentence functions as a clear demarcation of information from the previous chunks about eukaryotes and prokaryotes. 

From the perspective of PERIODICITY and THEME (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014; Martin and Rose 2007), it puts forward a Hyper-Theme that predicts what is to come (a stretch about archaea) and draws on both a marked and textual Theme (And now) in order to shift the text (Fries 1995). 

From the perspective of IDENTIFICATION (Martin 1992), it both presents a new participant that has not yet previously been mentioned (archaea) and splits an established participant chain (via the third branch) – making clear that there has been a first and second branch, and that this is a separate third branch. 

And finally, from the perspective of CONNEXION (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Martin 1992), the sentence-initial internal addition conjunction And signals a new stretch of language being connected to the previous. 

Three sets of textually oriented systems, then – PERIODICITY, IDENTIFICATION, and INTERNAL CONNEXION – work together to indicate that there is a new chunk of information coming up.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, mode is the part language is playing in terms of the culture. Chunks of information, on the other hand, are language, as too are Halliday's grammatical system of THEME, and Martin's discourse semantic systems of PERIODICITY, IDENTIFICATION and CONNEXION.

[2] To be clear, CONNEXION is termed CONJUNCTION in Martin (1992) and it is his discourse semantic system of the logical metafunction, not the textual metafunction. However, it is a rebranding of the textual lexicogrammatical system of cohesive conjunction (Halliday & Hasan 1976), though confused with the logical lexicogrammatical system of clause complexing (evidence here).

Confusing Mode With The Textual Language That Realises It

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 193):

The model proposed here conceptualises mode as a resource for organising information. As with the models for tenor and field, it does so in a way that aims to make the links between mode and the textual metafunction clear, while at the same time being able to connect with patterns of genre. Under this tentative model, texts can be organised into chunks of information, by demarcating boundaries or sustaining the text’s flow. These options occur within a system called JUNCTURE.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, here again the authors aim to make the links between context (mode) and language (textual meaning) clear by misinterpreting context as the language that realises it.

[2] As previously explained, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Martin's stratum of genre is a confusion of text type (register), mode and semantics (text structure). However, in any case, it will be seen that the authors do not make any connections with "patterns of genre".

[3] To be clear, the organisation of texts is the organisation of language, not context.

Misunderstanding Instantiation

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 192):

The ability to both render positions and orient them in relation to people and other positions offers a means of building large networks of meaning that are organised not through ideational configurations (i.e. through field), but through rhetorical relations (what in LCT Maton 2014 calls an axiological constellation).  That is, it allows us to map sets of interpersonal values and how they are oriented to different people and communities (Doran 2020a, 2020b, 2024). As noted above, this is done in a way that maintains the connection between tenor and the interpersonal metafunction.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, the authors' 'rendering' is a rebranding of speech function, interpersonal semantics, misunderstood as tenor.

[2] This has instantiation backwards. It is the networks of interpersonal meaning that provide the ability to "render positions" and so on, in texts.

[3] To be clear, the way the authors "maintain the connection between tenor and the interpersonal metafunction" is by rebranding an interpersonal semantic system as tenor.

Misrepresenting Language As Tenor

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 191):

Although we cannot explore tenor resources in more detail here, the above texts also illustrate how positions can be sourced to different people, and arranged in relation to each other – such as when Mukherjee (2022) draws on but (a resource for countering) to oppose the initial reactions to Woese’s work (sourced to Many prominent biologists, functioning as the Appraiser) to the current feelings (sourced to us):

Many prominent biologists ridiculed or simply ignored Woese’s work […]. But decades later, we have largely accepted, validated, and vindicated his theory.

Reviewer Comments:

 Again, this is language, not tenor. The tenor is 'who is taking part': author-reader relations.

Misunderstanding Context-Metafunction Resonance

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 190):

This example shows that a wide range of positions can be supported or rejected not just in dialogue, but in monologue as well. In addition, it illustrates that for this negotiation, it is not enough to just focus on attitude or engagement (or for dialogue, exchange); rather one must look at how these resources all together realise general patterns of support or rejection. Importantly, this is done almost entirely through interpersonal systems, allowing us to maintain the context/metafunction resonance between tenor and the interpersonal metafunction.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] Again, the example shows that the authors confuse interpersonal language (negotiation, attitude, engagement) with tenor. The tenor of the situation of the example is the relation of author to reader.

[2] Again, this demonstrates that the authors misunderstand the notion of context-metafunction resonance. Here they interpret it as tenor being realised by the interpersonal metafunction of language. As previously explained in a quote by Halliday, the relation between tenor and interpersonal language is that tenor decides the range of interpersonal meaning. This means that interpersonal selections vary with tenor, not that ideational and textual selections are not implicated in the realisation of tenor. But it is the interpersonal meaning — not the ideational or textual meaning — that identifies the tenor.

Confusing Tenor With Interpersonal Semantics

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 190):

Mukherjee (2022: 68–69) uses this resource [ENGAGEMENT and ATTITUDE] when recounting the discovery of archæa – the third main branch of organisms. In the example below, the positions that are being rendered (supported or rejected) are underlined, and the resources that render them are in italics for support and bold for reject.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, following from the previous post, this example is meant to show that the tenor resources of tendering and rendering can also occur in monologue, and that they "draw on" the resources of ENGAGEMENT and ATTITUDE. Leaving aside the question of whether this is consistent with the authors' previous formulation of tendering and rendering, it can again be seen that tendering and rendering are language (semantic) choices, not context (tenor) parameters. As such, they are on the same stratum as the systems of ENGAGEMENT and ATTITUDE, and simultaneous with them.

[2] Regarding the authors' analysis, 'the positions that are being rendered' are said to be:

• we had misclassified not just some arcane microbe
• war
• Taxonomy wasn't just missing the point, it was missing a whole living domain.
• Archaea were not "almost like" bacteria or "almost like" eukaryotes.
• Woese's work
• his theory

the resources said to render support for the positions are:

• spirited
• accepted, validated and vindicated

and the resources said to render rejection of the positions are:

• mis-
• not
• lonely, bitter war that left him ragged at the edges
• wasn't
• missing
• not
• ridiculed or simply ignored

Mistaking Interpersonal Semantics For Tenor

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 190):

Importantly, these resources [tendering and rendering] do not just occur in dialogue, but allow for different positions to be negotiated in monologue. This typically draws on resources of ENGAGEMENT and ATTITUDE, as different positions are put forward, supported, or rejected. Indeed, we saw an example of this above where the teacher said They’re not condensed. Here they drew on the negative not (disclaim: deny in Martin and White’s ENGAGEMENT system 2005), to reject the position that they are condensed.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, tendering and rendering are rebrandings of initiating and responding moves in the exchange structures that realise Halliday's interpersonal semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION, misunderstood by the authors as tenor.

[2] To be clear, the claim here is that the interpersonal semantic systems of ENGAGEMENT and ATTITUDE are "drawn on" in tendering and rendering. However, because the authors avoid the technical theoretical term 'realise', it is not clear whether these two remain semantic systems, or whether they are also part of the authors' general misinterpretation of tenor as the semantic systems that realise it.

Rebranding Speech Functions (Semantics) As Tendering And Rendering (Tenor) [2]

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 189-90):

But in practice, tendering and rendering are often done together. This occurs when in response to what one person puts forward, someone else puts forward something that only implies their support or rejection. An adapted example from our classroom illustrates this when the teacher and a student go back and forth as to what is on a diagram:

Here, the student puts forward that the green things are spindle fibres. The teacher rejects this, not by saying explicitly that they are wrong, but by tendering an alternative suggestion (that they are microtubules). However the student is not convinced, and so counters by arguing they’re not moving – both rejecting the teacher’s characterisation and tendering a reason for it – a move which the teacher once more rejects by tendering an alternative position (they’re condensing).

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, the tenor of this situation — 'who is taking part' — is student and teacher. What they say is language, not context. The tendering and rendering in their dialogue are speech functions in an exchange. Each response in an exchange potentially serves as an initiating move for the next response. The speech functions of the moves in the exchange are as follows:

• The first move in the exchange is a statement, rebranded here as 'tender'.
• As a response, the second move in the exchange is a contradiction, rebranded here as 'render: reject'.
• As an initiating move, it is a statement, rebranded here as 'tender'.
• As a response, the third move in the exchange is a contradiction, rebranded here as 'render: reject'.
• As an initiating move, it is a statement, rebranded here as 'tender'.
• As a response, the fourth move in the exchange is a contradiction, rebranded here as 'render: reject'.
• As an initiating move for a future response, it is a statement, rebranded here as 'tender'.

That is, the authors have simply rebranded statement as 'tender' and contradiction as 'render: reject', and misunderstood the interpersonal semantic system of speech function as the contextual parameter of tenor.

Rebranding Speech Functions (Semantics) As Tendering And Rendering (Tenor) [1]

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 189):

Under this model, people can tender meanings to be engaged with, or they can render meanings that have been put forward. For example in the classroom we have looked at, following the teacher asking the students what is inside the centrosome, a student tenders an answer that the teacher then renders by supporting it (by both repeating the answer and using positive attitude Right, Sweet). This follows a prompt from the teacher “Inside the centrosome is…again?” An arrow shows the direction of the rendering.

In other instances, the teacher rejects students’ suggestions. In the following, they do this by using the Modal Adjunct No, plus they’re not condensed yet:

These instances illustrate simple instances where rendering cleanly follows tendering.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the tenor of this situation — 'who is taking part' — is student and teacher. What is presented above, however, is speech function, interpersonal semantics, misunderstood as tenor. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 137):

[2] To be clear, in terms of speech function:

• the teacher initiates the exchange with a question,
• the student makes the expected response, an answer, and
• the teacher makes the expected response, an acknowledgement.

That is, in this instance, the authors have rebranded an answer to a question as 'tender' and an acknowledgement of an answer as 'render: support', and misunderstood it as tenor instead of speech function.

[3] To be clear, in terms of speech function:

• the student initiates the exchange with a statement, and
• the teacher makes the discretionary response, a contradiction.

That is, in this instance, the authors have rebranded a statement as 'tender' and a contradiction of the statement as 'render: reject', and misunderstood it as tenor instead of speech function.

As can be seen, the authors' model is less informative than the model it rebrands.

Misunderstanding Tenor And Context-Metafunction Resonance

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 188-9):

As Poynton (1990) has shown, variables in terms of contact (how close one is to another person) and status (the degree of ‘equality’ or ‘hierarchy’ in the relationship) can in fact be linked to manifestations of language having to do with how reciprocal the sets of choices are between people (status) and how many meanings can be shared (contact).

As we will discuss in Section 3.2 below, these choices are not restricted to the interpersonal metafunction, but in fact impinge upon choices in all metafunctions. Thus while these dimensions can be more clearly associated with patterns of language, we once more face the issue that this approach erodes the metafunction/context resonance upon which SFL’s model of language and context is constructed. Accordingly, we will propose below that these dimensions be interpreted as principles of instantiation, rather than as tenor options within the realisation hierarchy.

… Doran et al. (2024) propose a new model of tenor as a resource for enacting social relations. This model works to make clear the links between tenor and the interpersonal systems of language, and so maintain SFL’s context/metafunction resonance, as well as providing a map of resources that are used across situations to negotiate social relations and realise distinct genres.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] Here the authors extend their misunderstanding of 'context-metafunction resonance' from field to tenor. To be clear, the notion of context-metaphor resonance does not mean that a tenor variable only has implications for interpersonal choices. As Halliday explained, tenor decides the range of interpersonal choices. What this means is that a specific tenor is identified, that is, distinguished from others, by the interpersonal choices that realise it, rather than by ideational or textual choices.

[2] To be clear, this new model of tenor misunderstands tenor as the interpersonal language that realises it. That is, in terms of symbolic abstraction, it misconstrues the Value as the Token. And confusing levels cannot 'make clear the links between tenor and the interpersonal systems of language'.

Misunderstanding Field As The Language That Realises It

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 186-7):

Finally, both activities and taxonomies can be described in terms of potentially gradable properties. For example, when Mukherjee (2022: 68) describes bacteria, he does so by describing their characteristics (in bold) and the place they live (spatiotemporal properties underlined):

The abundance and resilience of bacteria stagger the mind. Some live in oceanic thermal vents where the water reaches near boiling temperature; they could easily thrive inside a steaming kettle. Some prosper within stomach acid. Yet others live, with seemingly equal ease, in the coldest places on earth, where the land freezes into packed, impenetrable tundra for ten months of the year. They are autonomous, mobile, communicative, and reproductive. (Mukherjee 2022: 68)

As this excerpt shows, these properties can be graded as being higher or lower (known as arrayed), such as the coldest place on earth and near boiling temperature. Although not specified here, arrayed properties are often gauged by being measured or quantified (e.g. 133.61 °F, 100 °C).

Taxonomy, activity and property make up the basic perspectives on field and offer complementary construals of phenomena. But as we have seen, they do not build their meaning in isolation. Their meanings regularly interrelate with each other, as we saw above where the classification taxonomy of types of organism was based upon their differing compositional taxonomies. 

In addition, each of these perspectives on phenomena can be reconstrued in terms of the other. For example, the teacher names the activity of a cell dividing into two identical daughter cells as mitosis.

By naming it in this way, the teacher reconstrues the activity of a single cell dividing into two identical daughter cells as an item – mitosis; or what we call an itemised activity. This allows mitosis to function as an item and be related to other items – for exemple by establishing a classification taxonomy of types of mitosis (e.g. orthomitosis, pleuromitosis, extranuclear mitosis, intranuclear mitosis, closed mitosis, open mitosis, etc.). At the same time, mitosis can function as an activity and be sequenced with other activities as, say, moments within the cell cycle, along with interphase, telophase, and cytokinesis. Properties can also be reconstrued – for example when Mukherjee (2022) described bacteria as in terms of their abundance and resilience (thereby reconstruing the properties abundant and resilient as itemised properties).

Reconstruals and interrelations such as these allow for increasingly expansive and integrated construals of phenomena. They provide rich resources to build knowledge of the world around us and to map and explain highly complex fields (Doran and Martin 2021; see also Carr 2023; Chen 2024). Together with the basic relations of field – activity, property, and taxonomy – they also link closely with ideational meanings within language (see Hao 2020),which for SFL theory, allows us to maintain ideational register/metafunction resonance between language and context.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, this all misunderstands field — what's happening in terms of the culture — as the ideational language that realises field.

Misunderstanding Field As A Semantic Sequence That Realises It

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 185-6):

A complementary perspective on field is a dynamic perspective that construes phenomena as a set of activities. For example, in our classroom the teacher explains mitosis as an activity where a single cell divides into two daughter cells (underlined). 

This example presents mitosis as a single activity – what we can call an unmomented activity. Alternatively, activities can be divided into a series of moments. When Mukherjee (2022: 99) visualises mitosis, he presents a caption that explains it in terms of its moments – what we call a momented activity. After describing that the chromosomes are initially present in loose threadlike forms in the nucleus, he explains:

Then the threads tighten into dense bundles. The nuclear membrane dissolves, and the chromosomes separate into two sides of the cell, as if drawn by some forces. When they’ve fully separated […] the cell splits, generating two new cells. (Mukherjee 2022: 99)

The activities that Mukherjee (2022) describes are as follows (where ^ indicates a sequence):

The threads tighten into dense bundles

^

The nuclear membrane dissolves

^

The chromosomes separate into two sides of the cell, as if drawn by some forces

^

They (the chromosomes) fully separate

^

The cell splits

^

Two new cells are generated

(Mukherjee 2022: 99)

This presents a complementary view to the static one focused on items – it outlines a dynamic unfolding of events. These activities are interconnected with the items and taxonomies that are involved in them. In this instance, the cell splits due to activities associated with two of its parts: the nuclear membrane dissolving and the chromosomes separating.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, the field of this text, 'what is happening' in cultural terms, is a classroom lesson in cell biology. The sequence of figures is the language that realises the (second-order) field in this instance.

In English Text (Martin 1992), such activity sequences are similarly misunderstood as field, but in Working With Discourse (Martin & Rose 2007), they became misinterpreted as experiential, not logical, discourse semantics.

Misunderstanding Field As A Lexical Hyponomy That Realises It

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 184, 185):

Alternatively, items can be related in terms of type and sub-type into a classification taxonomy. Mukherjee (2022: 67–69) draws on this when he lays out the diversity of cells that occur on Earth:

Every cell on Earth – which is to say every unit of every living being – belongs to one of three entirely distinctive domains, or branches of living organism. The first branch comprises bacteria: single-celled organisms that are surrounded by a cell membrane, lack particular cellular structures found in animal and plant cells, and possess other structures that are unique to them […] We think of them as pathogens – batonella, pneuomococcus, salmonella – because a few of them cause disease […]. We – you and me – inhabit a second branch, or domain, called eukaryotes. The word eukaryote is a technicality: it refers to the idea that our cells, and the cells of animals, fungi, and plants, contain a special structure called a nucleus (karyon, or “kernel” in Greek). This nucleus, as we will soon learn, is a storage site for chromosomes. Bacteria lack nuclei and are called prokaryotes – that is, “before nucleii” […] And now the third branch: archaea. It may be the single most startling fact in the history of taxonomy that this full branch of living beings remained undiscovered until about fifty years ago […] they lack the defining features of the other two domains. (Mukherjee 2022: 67–69)

This stretch of text is organised around three subtypes of organism (in bold above), for which he also gives some examples. We can visualise this classification taxonomy as in Figure 3.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, the field of this text, 'what is happening' in cultural terms, is cell biology. The hyponymic taxonomy of the set of lexical items is the language that realises the field in this instance.

Misunderstanding Field As A Lexical Meronomy That Realises It

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 183-4):

Beginning with the static perspective, this involves viewing fields as sets of items that can be arranged into taxonomies. One type of taxonomic relation is that of composition – where items are arranged into a part-whole relations. For example, in a classroom lesson in cell biology, the teacher at one stage reads from the textbook:

Here, the teacher explains that animal cell centrosomes are composed of two centrioles, which in turn include nine groups of three microtubules. We can visualise this as a compositional taxonomy as in Figure 2.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, the field of this text, 'what is happening' in cultural terms, is a classroom lesson in cell biology. The meronymic taxonomy of the set of lexical items is the language that realises the (second-order) field in this instance.

Misunderstanding Field As The Ideational Language That Realises It

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 183):

Accordingly, in this section we will outline field as a resource for construing phenomena. This perspective emphasises the resonance between field and the ideational metafunction in language, as well as offering tools that can link upwards with genre. The model presented here is that of Doran and Martin (2021). Under this model, phenomena can be construed dynamically as a set of activities oriented to some social action or they can be construed statically as relations among items.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, and as will be seen, this misunderstands field, 'what is happening' in terms of the culture, as the ideational language that realises it.

[2] To be clear, the "resonance" here derives from misinterpreting field as language.

[3] It will be seen that the 'dynamic' construals are semantic: sequences, and that the 'static' construals are lexical: meronymic and hyponymic taxonomies.

Deconstructing The Authors' Notion Of Field, Tenor, And Mode As Guiding Principles For Instantiation

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 182):

In essence, what we are proposing in this paper is that given the significant expansion in the architecture of SFL in recent decades – in terms of more clearly distinguishing the hierarchies of realisation, instantiation, and individuation – we have an opportunity to rethink our understanding of field, tenor, and mode. In particular, we will suggest that given the wide-range of things field, tenor, and mode have been asked to account for, a fruitful avenue for exploration is to consider them from multiple angles. Rather than just considering them as components of a single stratum within the hierarchy of realisation, we can also consider them in terms of guiding principles for the probabilistic co-selection and arrangement of choices in instantiation (linking more closely to Halliday’s ‘register’ and Gregory’s [and our] ‘diatype’). We can also consider them from the perspective of individuation as arenas of variation, contestation, and collaboration (though this latter perspective will only briefly be touched upon in this paper). In short, field, tenor, and mode are asked to do a lot in SFL theory, and we propose it is time to give SFL the theoretical space it needs to do so.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This is a mere pretext. Realisation has been part of the theory since its inception more than 50 years ago, instantiation has been clearly distinguished from realisation for about 40 years, and individuation is not explored in this paper.

[2] This demonstrates an ignorance of the architecture of language already proposed by SFL Theory. To be clear, Halliday's register is a point of variation on the cline of instantiation, at the level of language content, from system (potential) to text (instance). Registers differ by instantiation probabilities, with each register realising a situation type, which is a point of variation on the cline of instantiation, at the level of context, from culture (potential) to situation (instance). 

That is, the probabilistic instantiation that distinguishes registers varies with the contextual configuration (Hasan) of field, tenor and mode variables that define a situation type. It is in this sense that field, tenor and mode are already "guiding principles" for the instantiation of the linguistic features that distinguish registers. Situation type, however, does not feature in the authors' model.