Abstract

 Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 177):

In spite of decades of research developing a model of language and context, there is little consensus in systemic functional linguistics (SFL) about how context should be modelled and how language and context are related. 

In this paper, we review recent work in SFL which focuses on modelling register as a resource – reconceiving field as a resource for construing phenomena, tenor as a resource for negotiating social relations, and mode as a resource for composing texture. 

This work has a number of implications for SFL’s conception of realisation (as strata of abstraction), instantiation (as a cline of generalisation), and individuation (as a scale of belonging). 

For realisation it bears critically on the issue of whether or not to adopt a stratified model of context (as register and genre) and the relationship between extrinsic functionality (field, tenor, and mode) and intrinsic functionality (ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions). 

For instantiation, it bears critically on our modelling of principles for coupling (co-selecting and arranging choices within and across languages and related modalities of communication) – for example mass, presence, and association. 

And for individuation, it bears critically on the perspectives of allocation (i.e. how access to meanings and their uptake is distributed across communities) and affiliation (i.e. how meanings are used to collaborate and struggle, within and between social groups). 

Our basic aim in this paper is to suggest a model for improving traction as far as SFL work on language in context is concerned, fully embracing a multimodal perspective on language and related modalities of communication as resources for meaning.

Reviewer Comments:

In this paper the authors simply misinterpret context as the language that realises it, and this is motivated by the authors' misunderstanding of 'the metafunctional hook-up hypothesis: the theoretical projection of the ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions onto the cultural context of language as field, tenor and mode.

A close examination of all the theoretical misunderstandings that accumulate in the course of the authors' "rethinking" will prove very instructive.