Most Pageviews by Country

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.