Misconceiving Context As Language

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 178):

In this paper, we propose a new perspective on modelling field, tenor, and mode in systemic functional linguistics (SFL hereafter). This involves treating each contextual variable as a resource – reconceiving field as a resource for construing phenomena, tenor as a resource for negotiating social relations, and mode as a resource for composing texture. In doing so we outline some of the key implications of this new perspective for SFL’s conception of realisation (as strata of abstraction), instantiation (as a cline of generalisation), and individuation (as a scale of belonging). 

For realisation, we argue that it bears critically on the issue of whether or not to adopt a stratified model of context (as register and genre) and the relationship between extrinsic functionality (field, tenor, and mode) and intrinsic functionality (ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions). 

For instantiation, we suggest that it bears critically on our modelling of principles for coupling (co-selecting and arranging choices within and across languages and related modalities of communication) – for example mass, presence, and association. 

And for individuation, we propose that it bears critically on the perspectives of allocation (i.e. how access to meanings and their uptake is distributed across communities) and affiliation (i.e. how meanings are used to collaborate and struggle, within and between social groups). 

Our main concern is to develop a model which improves traction as far as SFL work on language in context is concerned, fully embracing a multimodal perspective on language and related modalities of communication as resources for meaning.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, this new perspective confuses the cultural context of language with the language that realises the cultural context. Specifically, the authors  misconceive:

• contextual field as the ideational function of language in construing experience as meaning;
• contextual tenor as the interpersonal function of language in enacting social relations as meaning;
• contextual mode as the textual function of language in making discourse relevant to context.

[2] As will be seen, the authors do not cover individuation in the proposals made in this paper.