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.
No comments:
Post a Comment