The Two Basic Misunderstandings From Which This Paper Proceeds

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 182):

In this paper we take another step by reconstruing field, tenor, and mode as resources for making meaning (as opposed to classifications of kinds of context) – with a view to designing networks that strengthen the correlation of intrinsic with extrinsic functionality (Section 3 below). In addition we will offer an interpretation of permeability from the perspective of instantiation – with respect to principles for coupling choices across metafunctions which we refer to as mass, association, and presence (see Section 4 below).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, this is the first major misunderstanding of SFL Theory in this paper: misunderstanding the context of meaning making as the language that makes meaning.

[2] As previously explained, this is the second major misunderstanding of SFL Theory in this paper: misunderstanding 'context-metafunction resonance' as an exclusive metafunctional relation between context and language.

[3] To be clear, 'permeability' refers to Hasan's observation that field, tenor and mode are partially interdependent. Hasan (1999: 244):

The contextual parameters – field, tenor and mode – are not, to use Bernstein’s (1975) terminology, three strongly classified domains, each with a clear-cut boundary of its own: they are in fact permeable. What choices are made in field is relevant to some extent to the choices in tenor and in mode.

This is, of course, the same for language. For example, a choice in the system of THEME (textual) is relevant to choices in MOOD (interpersonal) and TRANSITIVITY (experiential).