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

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 213):

Reconsidering the variation between more technical and more everyday discourse – often positioned within field – we have presented the variable of mass. Mass offers a means of conceptualising how much ‘meaning’ is presented in a particular instance (influenced by Maton’s [2014] conception of semantic density), whether that be ideational, interpersonal, and textual, and the differing language resources used to present this variation in the strength of meaning. 

Reconsidering the social relations of contact and status – what has often been positioned within tenor – we have presented association. Association presents cross-metafunctional principles for organising the reciprocity of choice or lack thereof that marks similarities or differences in status, and the contraction and proliferation that mark differing levels of social contact. 

And reconsidering variation in ‘abstraction’ or ‘concreteness’ – often positioned within mode – we have presented the principle of presence. Presence presents a cross-metafunctional understanding of context-dependence (influenced by Maton’s [2014] semantic gravity). This considers the degree to which texts iconically match what it is talking about (ideational iconicity), the degree to which texts engage with the audience as it goes (interpersonal negotiability), and the degree to which texts relate out to the situation they are in (textual implicitness).

 Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained:

• 'mass' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field;
• 'technicality' is the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field;
• 'iconisation' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field; and
• 'aggregation' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

[2] As previously explained:

• 'association' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor;
• 'participation' is the contextual parameter of field confused with the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor;
• 'accord' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor; and
• 'coordination' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[3] As previously explained:

• 'presence' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode;
• 'iconicity' is the ideational meaning (metaphor) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode;
• 'negotiability' is the interpersonal meaning (speech function) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode; and
• 'implicitness' is the textual meaning (exophoric demonstrative reference) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode.

Problems With 'Principles Of Instantiation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 213):

In terms of instantiation, this model focuses on how different choices are brought together and sequenced. More technically, it is concerned with the principles that underpin couplings. It has long been acknowledged that choices in language are not put together in a random fashion, but work together to build meaning. This is, of course, the basis of Halliday’s conception of register. The current model aims to make explicit the principles determining how these choices come together. Importantly, it arises from an acknowledgement that these principles are not tied to any particular metafunction but are cross-metafunctional.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] The reader is invited to imagine a time when it was thought that choices in language were put together in a random fashion so as not to work together to build meaning.

[2] This is not, of course, the basis of Halliday’s conception of register. To be clear, Halliday's 'register' is a point of variation on the cline of instantiation between language-as-system and language-as-text. Different sub-potentials of culture (contextual configurations of field, tenor and mode) are realised by different registers, and registers differ in the selection probabilities of semantic and grammatical features.

[3] To be clear, the first half of this paper reconceptualised the contextual parameters of context, field tenor and mode, as the ideational, interpersonal and textual language that realises each. This simply mistook one level of symbolic abstraction for another.

The second half of this paper then reconceptualised the notions of contextual field tenor and mode that they replaced as 'principles of instantiation' of language. This again confused the contextual parameters of context, field tenor and mode, as the ideational, interpersonal and textual language that realises each, but went further by modelling this confusion of context and language as principles for the instantiation of language.

[4] This continues the authors' misunderstanding of 'context-metafunction resonance' as requiring that contextual parameters only specify linguistic realisations in their counterpart metafunction, as previously explained.

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.

Presence As Iconicity, Negotiability And Implicitness Deconstructed

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 211-2):

We’re now in position to summarise the metafunctional perspective on presence introduced in this section. From the perspective of ideational meaning, the key variable is iconicity – to what extent does a text unfold by mirroring what it is talking about (e.g. realising what is going on by using verbs or by using nouns)? From the perspective of interpersonal meaning, the key variable is negotiability – to what extent does a text engage people in the ‘to and fro’ of dialogue, including the amount of attitude expressed and how it is triggered or targeted? From the perspective of textual meaning, the key variable is implicitness – to what extent does a text depend on exophoric reference to its sensory environment? Table 5 summarises this metafunctional factoring of presence in language as implicitness, negotiability, and iconicity.

 Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, 'presence' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode.

[2] As previously explained, 'iconicity' is the ideational meaning (metaphor) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode.

[3] As previously explained, 'negotiability' is the interpersonal meaning (speech function) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode.

[4] As previously explained, 'implicitness' is the textual meaning (exophoric demonstrative reference) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode.

The Problem With 'Implicitness'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 211):

This brings us to SFL’s more traditional concern with context dependency – focusing on the extent to which a text uses words that point to its sensory environment – to what people can see, hear, touch, taste or feel. We will use the term implicitness to refer to the degree to which texts depend on context in these deictic terms. The contrast in play here is illustrated in the example below (from Ngo et al. 2022a: 1022) which has endophoric deixis (that and it) referring to text that the teacher has just read to the class (marked by the upwards pointing arrows) alongside exophoric deixis (this, this, here, this) pointing to an image the class is working on (marked by curved arrows below).

Exophoric reference of this kind is a long-standing measure of the context dependency of a text, in both sociological and linguistic research (e.g. Hawkins 1977; Martin 1983). The items in bold above are relatively implicit and to fully interpret their meaning you have to know what they are referring to – in this case to a science teacher and her students, who are looking at a model of a cell projected onto a smart board. For texts like this there is a sense in which to fully understand them you had to be there (for the lesson) or have someone explain what was going on (as we have just done). Texts which don’t make exophoric reference of this kind are relatively context independent.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors propose 'implicitness' to be a textual perspective on textual meaning. However, the concern here is simply with exophoric demonstrative reference, and 'implicitness' simply means that the identity signalled by a grammatical demonstrative reference item has to be recovered from the environment of the text. That is, 'implicitness' is merely a rebranding of (the amount of) exophoric demonstrative reference at the grammatical stratum of language.

[2] Inexplicably, confusingly, and less iconically, Ngo et al. (2022a: 1022) use Halliday's symbol for exophoric reference as their symbol for endophoric reference, and Halliday's symbol for (cataphoric) endophoric reference as their symbol for exophoric reference. Cf. Halliday (1994: : 317):

The Problem With Negotiability

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 210):

This draws our attention to the ‘to and fro’ of face-to-face interaction, as speakers initiate exchanges and respond. The familiar Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) cycles of pedagogic discourse illustrate this point – as teacher and students engage in question, answer, evaluation cycles.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, the authors propose this 'negotiability' to be an interpersonal perspective on textual meaning. However, the authors have previously rebranded the exchange cycles of speech function as tendering and rendering which they propose to be a resource of tenor.

The Problem With 1st And 2nd Person Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 209-10):

From an interpersonal perspective, we are concerned with negotiability – the extent to which texts engage speakers with listeners as they unfold. This links with long-standing concerns within SFL between variation associated with monologue versus dialogue. In the previous example, taken from face-to-face classroom interaction, we find 1st and 2nd person exophoric pronouns referring to the teacher and students involved (in bold below) – pronouns which tie the text more closely to the ‘here and now’ than endophoric third person ones.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, personal reference items signal that an identity has to be retrieved from elsewhere. However, no identity needs to be retrieved for 1st and 2nd person pronouns, because they are defined by the speech situation itself (which is why they "tie the text more closely to the ‘here and now’ "). Accordingly, 1st and 2nd person pronouns do not make exophoric reference, as demonstrated by the following analysis by Halliday (1994: 317):

This misunderstanding arose in Martin (1992: 99), and was imported into IFG by Matthiessen, e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 604).

Problems With The Authors' Examples Of 'Iconicity'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 209):

For a lesson on mitosis for example, we can ask to what extent the teacher proceeds step-by-step through the stages as they unfold (e.g. from interphase, through prophase, metaphase, and anaphase to telophase) or whether the class moves around a bit or works backwards chronologically, beginning with the telophase where the nuclear membrane reforms as the cell divides and working back towards the originating single cell. 

We can also ask questions about iconicity with respect to the organisation of single events. In the following example, the teacher first refers to what happens in the synthesis stage as you duplicate the chromosome – with what happens construed as a verb (duplicate). The absence of this process before synthesis in her following comment is rephrased as without duplication into the chromosome – with what happens construed as a noun (duplication). In the initial phrase the grammar matches what happens more closely than in the second, since the event is realised verbally rather than nominally.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, any 'iconicity' in this example is in the relation between the ideational meanings of the teacher-students text and the ideational meanings of the text they are using to learn about mitosis.

[2] To be clear, the relative 'iconicity' in this example is the relative congruence between ideational semantics and ideational grammar.

The Misunderstandings Behind 'Iconicity'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 209):

From an ideational perspective, we are concerned with iconicity – the degree to which a text matches what it is talking about.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, for the authors, 'iconicity' is textual meaning viewed from an ideational perspective. That is, 'iconicity' is said to be 'creating information flow' viewed from the perspective of 'construing experience'.

However, the authors' notion of iconicity derives from a proposed relation of ideational congruence in language to field in context. Martin & Matruglio (2020: 102-3):

…an activity sequence as a whole can be realised not as a discourse semantic sequence of events, but named as a figure… . And semantic configurations such as these may be themselves construed grammatically as nominal groups … rather than clauses. So from an ideational perspective we can use the degree of iconicity between what is going on in a field and its construal in discourse as a further measure of contextual dependency, with more iconic realisations more context dependent than less iconic ones. The main linguistic resource used to rework ideational iconicity in discourse is grammatical metaphor…

Importantly, this misunderstands a congruent relation between ideational lexicogrammar and ideational semantics as an iconic relation between the ideational content of language (text) and the ideational dimension of context ("what it is talking about").

This misunderstanding largely derives from the misconstrual of 'activity sequences' as field instead of semantics in Martin (1992); evidence here. However, in later work, Martin & Rose (2007), 'activity sequences' were relocated to discourse semantics, though as experiential rather than logical systems; evidence here. The more recent re-relocation of 'activity sequences' back to field in Martin & Matruglio (2020) is thus both inconsistent with Martin & Rose (2007) and a misconstrual of language as context.

A second source of this misunderstanding derives from Legitimation Code Theory in sociology, whose 'social realist' epistemological stance contradicts the 'immanent' stance of SFL Theory, and in which meaning is, instead, modelled as knowledge. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 442):

If a different standpoint is adopted, the frame of reference may be an extra-semantic one: either because the approach to meaning is transcendent rather than immanent or because the object of modelling is taken to be knowledge rather than meaning.

The Metafunctional And Stratal Misunderstandings Behind 'Presence'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 208-9):

… we have revisited work on context dependency in SFL to include ideational and interpersonal perspectives alongside the more traditional textual ones. As noted above, taken together, the contributions from the different metafunctions are referred to as presence …. This problematises concerns in SFL for the cline between action and reflection …, and monologue versus dialogue, acknowledging that they do not simply impinge upon textual meanings, but meanings across all metafunctions.

Reviewer Comments:

The authors' argument here is as follows: 

Premiss 1: The mode of a context is realised by ideational and interpersonal language as well as textual language.

Premiss 2: This is a problem for context-metafunction resonance.

Conclusion: The solution is to propose that there are ideational, interpersonal and textual components of textual language, and to locate the resultant ensemble, 'presence', in mode at the level of context.

The problem with Premiss 2 is that it is false, because it misunderstands context-metafunction resonance as requiring that mode only have implications for textual meaning. The problem with the conclusion is that it misunderstands both stratification and metafunction. As previously explained for the authors' frameworks of 'mass', and 'association,' the authors' framework of 'presence' confuses the level of context (mode) with the level of language (textual meaning), and misunderstands one metafunction, the textual, to include all three metafunctions.

Association As Participation, Accord, And Coordination Deconstructed

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 208):

We’re now in position to summarise the metafunctional perspective on association presented above. From the perspective of ideational meaning, the key variable is participation – to what extent to people share understandings about what to do and who or what is involved? From the perspective of interpersonal meaning the key variable is accord – to what extent are feelings shared, explicitly and implicitly, about what is going on, and how cooperative are speakers where interaction is involved? From the perspective of textual meaning the key variable is coordination – to what extent do speakers smooth the flow of discourse by taking for granted information that is shared? Table 4 summarises this metafunctional factoring of association as participation, accord, and coordination.

 Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, 'association' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[2] As previously explained, 'participation' is the contextual parameter of field confused with the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[3] As previously explained, 'accord' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[4] As previously explained, 'coordination' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Coordination'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 206):

From a textual perspective, we are concerned with what we will generalise as coordination – involving taken for granted understandings smoothing the flow of discourse based on the experience of ‘kith and kin’ spending time together, and the relative control over the textual organisation of a text. Homophoric reference is a strong marker of taken-for-granted understandings of association since it identifies entities that are not necessarily accessible from the co-text or material context of an utterance. Familiar examples from domestic situations would be presuming reference such as the fridge, the car, the bathroom, the yard, and so on (where it would be ridiculous to say there’s a fridge in the kitchen; grab some beer from it, unless there were another fridge elsewhere that might be confused with it). As far as proliferation is concerned, the more that can be presumed, the closer the relationship.

Reviewer Comments:

For the authors, 'coordination' is interpersonal meaning viewed from a textual perspective. That is, 'coordination' is 'enacting social relations' viewed from the perspective of 'creating information flow'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'coordination' is simply the textual creation of information flow, misunderstood as tenor. The textual perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

The Metafunctional And Stratal Misunderstandings Behind 'Association'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 204):

Martin (1992: 529, 532) provides more detail on the language systems in play as far as Poynton’s patterns of usage are concerned, concentrating on interpersonal systems. But even there textual systems (e.g. rhythm, homophora) and ideational systems (e.g. agency, technical lexis) are brought in to provide a more complete picture. This suggests that as far as social relations are concerned, a multi-functional perspective will prove useful. Below we suggest a framework for what we will refer to as association – comprising ideational (participation), interpersonal (accord), and textual (coordination) patterns of usage as interlocutors enact relations of status and contact with one another.

Reviewer Comments:

The authors' argument here is as follows: 

Premiss 1: The tenor of a context is realised by textual and ideational language as well as interpersonal language.

Premiss 2: This is a problem for context-metafunction resonance.

Conclusion: The solution is to propose that there are ideational, interpersonal and textual components of interpersonal language, and to locate the resultant ensemble, 'association', in tenor at the level of context.

The problem with Premiss 2 is that it is false, because it misunderstands context-metafunction resonance as requiring that tenor only have implications for interpersonal meaning. The problem with the conclusion is that it misunderstands both stratification and metafunction. As previously explained for the authors' framework of 'mass', the authors' framework of 'association' confuses the level of context (tenor) with the level of language (interpersonal meaning), and misunderstands one metafunction, the interpersonal, to include all three metafunctions.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Aggregation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 201):

Turning to textual meaning, another important dimension of mass is what we refer to as aggregation – a process whereby texts package their presentation of knowledge and values.

Reviewer Comments:

For the authors, 'aggregation' is ideational meaning viewed from a textual perspective. That is, 'aggregation' is 'construing experience' viewed from the perspective of 'creating information flow'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'aggregation' is simply a textual creation of information flow, misunderstood as field. The textual perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

The Metafunctional And Stratal Misunderstandings Behind 'Mass'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 199):

Responding to Maton’s characterisation of semantic density as involving ‘formal definitions, empirical descriptions or feelings, political sensibilities, taste, values, morals, affiliations’, we have revisited work on technicality in an effort to broaden SFL’s conception of specialised knowledge. 

In terms of SFL’s concept of metafunction this means extending the focus on ideational meaning to include interpersonal and textual perspectives as well. As noted above, taken together, the contributions from the different metafunctions are referred to as mass (introduced in Martin [2017] and further elaborated with respect to the analysis of infographics in Martin and Unsworth [2024]).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in taking a 'language-based approach to cognition', SFL models 'knowledge' as meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: ix-x):

It seems to us that our dialogue is relevant to current debates in cognitive science. In one sense, we are offering it as an alternative to mainstream currents in this area, since we are saying that cognition "is" (that is, can most profitably be modelled as) not thinking but meaning: the "mental" map is in fact a semiotic map, and "cognition" is just a way of talking about language. In modelling knowledge as meaning, we are treating it as a linguistic construct: hence, as something that is construed in the lexicogrammar. Instead of explaining language by reference to cognitive processes, we explain cognition by reference to linguistic processes.

[2] To be clear,  this "extension" of the focus on ideational meaning misunderstands SFL’s concept of metafunction. To paraphrase Halliday (2003 [1995]: 414-5):

• the ideational metafunction is the function of language in construing experience as meaning;
• the interpersonal metafunction is the function of language in enacting social relations as meaning; and
• the textual metafunction is the function of language in creating the flow of information.

In this model, ideational meaning does not "include contributions" from interpersonal and textual "perspectives", any more than the TRANSITIVITY system of the clause "includes contributions" from interpersonal and textual "perspectives". MOOD and THEME are Interpersonal and textual "perspectives", but on the clause, not on the ideational wording of the clause.

[3] To be clear, defining 'mass' in terms of the meaning of language and locating it in the contextual parameter of field is a contradiction in terms.

Three Of The Misunderstandings Behind 'Mass', 'Association' And 'Presence'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 199):

In this section we turn from realisation to instantiation and introduce a multifunctional perspective on some of the traditional concerns of field, tenor, and mode studies in previous work. 

• Re-visiting traditional work on field leads us to a multi-functional perspective on knowledge-building we refer to as mass (Martin 2017); 
• re-visiting traditional work on tenor leads us to a multi-functional perspective on enacting social relations we refer to as association; and 
• re-visiting mode leads us to a multifunctional perspective on organising information flow we refer to as presence (Martin and Matruglio 2013). … 

We propose mass, association, and presence as principles of co-selection during the process of instantiation – which we believe provide a partial account of the phenomenon of permeability in Hasan’s work as introduced above.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, from this point on, the theoretical confusions in this paper multiply.

[1] The authors here continue their confusion of context with language:

• 'mass' confuses field (context) with "knowledge building" (ideational language + semogenesis);
• 'association' confuses tenor (context) with enacting social relations (interpersonal language); and
• 'presence' confuses mode (context) with organising information flow (textual language).

[2] It will be seen that these multifunctional perspectives involve viewing each of the metafunctions from the perspective of each of the metafunctions. A grammatical example of this approach would be to view clause transitivity from ideational, interpersonal and textual perspectives. To be clear, it is the clause itself that is viewed from metafunctional perspectives, not any of the metafunctional strands of the clause.

[3] As previously explained, instantiation is the relation between potential and instance at a given level of symbolic abstraction. As such, variables that are said to be at the level of context — mass, association and presence — cannot be principles of instantiation for the level of language. That is, here the authors misunderstand instantiation as a relation between context and language. If mass, association and presence are said to be potential at the level of context, then they themselves are instantiated at the level of context.

[4] To be clear, 'permeability' here simply means that options in one parameter of context, say field, can preselect or exclude options in another, say tenor or mode. The same phenomenon occurs in language where an option in THEME, say, preselects or excludes options in MOOD or TRANSITIVITY.

Moving From The Misunderstandings Of Realisation To The Misunderstandings Of Instantiation

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198-9):

As for tenor and field, these systems of mode – DISTRIBUTION, JUNCTURE, and PULSING – offer a model of the resources drawn on to organise text, rather than a common-sense classification of different modes. This model of mode as a resource is considerably less developed than that for field (Doran and Martin 2021) and for tenor (Doran et al. 2024), but it nonetheless offers a means of maintaining the context-metafunction resonance that has underpinned SFL’s conception of the relationship between the internal and external functionality of language.

Of course, this does not mean that other considerations often grouped under field, tenor, and mode (e.g. degrees of technicality, social contact, and context-dependence) do not need to be accounted for. Rather, it means that they need to be conceptualised in a theoretically clearer manner. To do this, we propose a perspective from instantiation that treats these and other variables as coupling principles – i.e. as principles for the co-selection and arrangement of choices in language.

 

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously shown, these "mode" systems all derive from misunderstanding context as language.

[2] As previous shown, the authors misunderstand context-metafunction resonance as requiring that a contextual parameter only implicate linguistic systems of the counterpart metafunction. On this misunderstanding, the field of logic implicating 'proposition' in the interpersonal system of the speech function would constitute a reduction in context-metafunction resonance.

Moreover, as previously shown, the authors themselves contribute to a "reduction of resonance" by interpreting exchange structure (interpersonal semantics) as a resource of mode (textual context).

[3] To be clear, instantiation is the relation between potential and instance at a given level of symbolic abstraction. As such, variables at one level, context, cannot be principles of instantiation for another level, language. That is, here the authors begin their misunderstanding of instantiation as a relation between context and language. This is the direct opposite of conceptualising context "in a theoretically clearer manner".

Confusing Mode With "Martin's" Text Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198):

Similarly, the use of text reference (Martin 1992), often coupled with semiotic entities (Hao 2020) and connexion resources, also indicates a distribution of information. In the following (constructed) example, the semiotic entity three main arguments points forward to the fact that a set of arguments are required for the full meaning of the section; the internal connexions First, Second, and Finally signal that each argument connects either forward or backward with the other arguments; and the text reference None of these arguments at the end, looks backwards by making clear that the information that is ‘not convincing’ is to be found earlier in the text. These resources all work together to distribute information throughout the text (while also working to demarcate and foreground different components of this information).

There have been three main arguments against students wearing uniforms. First, they dampens students’ individual expression. Second, uniforms are expensive. And third, they harken back to an old-fashioned time of rigid uniformity. None of these arguments are convincing.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with the text reference of Halliday & Hasan (1976: 52), and misleads by plagiaristically crediting Martin (1992) as its intellectual source.

[2] This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with Martin's logical discourse semantic system of connexion, which rebrands his confusion of Halliday's grammatical systems of cohesive conjunction (textual) and clause complexing (logical). Evidence here.

Confusing Mode With Endophoric Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198):

Distribution can also occur within texts. The clearest instance of this involves drawing on anaphora – whereby an instance refers backwards in a text, often via pronouns. In the following text, the teacher first puts forward the entity ‘nucleolus’, and then each subsequent reference uses it to indicate the information being sought is distributed across the text:

Phoricity resources such as those noted above are one of the key means of distributing information. But they are by no means the only resource for doing this. In the text above, the two questions put forward by the teacher and student: Do you know what the nucleolus is? And Isn’t that where it make ribosomes? also make clear that the information of the text is to be distributed – in this case that another move is needed for closure.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This simply confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with a linguistic system two strata below: the lexicogrammatical system of endophoric reference (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

[2] To be clear, here the authors propose that exchange structure (interpersonal semantics) is a resource of mode (textual context), which, as well as confusing context with language, contradicts their claim  that their model conforms to (their misunderstanding of) context-metafunction resonance,.

Confusing Mode With Ideational Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 197-8):

This contrasts with a number of instances at the beginning of the class, where the teacher is establishing what they are going to do. In these instances, marked in bold, the teacher is indicating that there is no relevant information elsewhere that is needed to follow what is going on – the information is not distributed but immediate.

What we’re going to do today is model a representation of mitosis as a point of reference to explain these stages. I’m going to give you some materials so when we jump into our groups you’re going to construct a model for the stages.

The immediacy of the information is established in three of these instances through presenting reference (Martin 1992) – a representation of mitosis, some materials, a model, where the indefinite Deictics indicate that these participants are being introduced and are not to be recovered from elsewhere in the text or the situation. The fourth possible instance, our groups, draws on homophora (Halliday and Hasan 1976); in this case the entity’s identity is presumed, and so does not need to be recovered from anywhere else.

Reviewer Comments:

This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with two misunderstandings of a linguistic system two strata below: the lexicogrammatical system of reference (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

On the one hand, Martin's 'presenting reference' misunderstands reference in the sense of ideational denotation; see the evidence here. On the other hand, the authors misunderstand what is not a reference item, the first person determiner our, as a homophoric reference item.