Misunderstandings Of Mode As Field In SFL

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 180):

Note however that when genre is treated as a supervenient system there are implications for more specific characterisations of field, tenor, and mode. 

As far as field is concerned it means that with respect to the modelling of socio-semiotic processes such as enabling, exploring, expounding, reporting, and the like in Matthiessen’s work (e.g. Figure 6.13 in Matthiessen et al. 2008) or the modelling of verbal action such as instructing, planning, narrating, informing, and the like in Hasan’s work (e.g. Figure 3 in Hasan 1999) – both are handled at the stratum of genre, not register (see Martin 1992; Martin and Rose 2008). 

Similarly in relation to mode, the modelling of rhetorical ‘modes’ such as expository, didactic, persuasive, descriptive, and the like in Halliday’s work (e.g. Halliday 1978: 143–145) is also handled at the stratum of genre, not register.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, as the work of Halliday demonstrates, the work of Matthiessen and Hasan confuses rhetorical modes (the part language is playing in the culture) with field (what's happening in the culture). This can be seen, for example, in Matthiessen's confusion of mode ('the part played by language') with field ('what's happening') in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 37):