The Problems With The Authors' Reconceptualisation Of Field, Tenor And Mode In Terms Of Realisation

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 212-3):

Under the model presented in this paper, field, tenor, and mode have been reconceptualised in terms of realisation as meaning making resources. Field has been presented as a resource for construing phenomena, tenor as a resource for enacting sociality, and mode as a resourcing for composing texture. 

This has been done in such a way that we can maintain context/metafunction resonance – it means that the resources of field are more closely tied to ideational meanings in language, the resources of tenor are more closely tied to interpersonal meanings, and the resources of mode are more closely tied to textual meanings than have otherwise been the case.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors' reconceptualisation of field, tenor and mode has been to confuse these metafunctional dimensions of the culture as semiotic system with the language that realises each of them: 'construing phenomena' (ideational), 'enacting sociality' (interpersonal) and 'composing texture' (textual).

[2] Here the authors disclose that they misunderstand 'context-metafunction resonance' as a "tying" of each metafunctional meaning in language to its counterpart in context. To be clear, 'context-metafunction resonance' means that field (e.g. biology) decides the range of ideational selections, tenor (e.g. teacher and student) decides the range of interpersonal selections, and mode (e.g. spoken) decides the range of textual selections (Halliday 1978: 117). As such, the range of ideational selections in language identifies the contextual field, the range of interpersonal selections in language identifies the contextual tenor, and the range of textual selections in language identifies the contextual mode.