Misunderstanding Interpersonal Semantics as Context

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 45-6):

Turning to the note option, these can be enacted through the heteroglossic option for entertain, where there is an acknowledgement of the possibility of different voices, but no explicit stance is taken.

A noting move in this kind of example will typically occur for the low and median positions of modality (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, pp. 178-179), e.g., using possible, perhaps, maybe, can, may etc. Higher modality, e.g., probably, likely, must, will, certainly etc., is more likely to realise some sort of support or reject (though see Chapter 3 for how this interacts with speaker and listener purview).

Reviewer Comments:

The authors propose ‘note’ as a subtype of ‘tender’, situated within their system of POSITIONING — which they treat as contextual (tenor). However, the example they give is clearly a move in an exchange — that is, a semantic choice in the interpersonal metafunction. 

‘Noting’ is the authors' rebranding of ‘entertaining’ of the ENGAGEMENT system (White 1998), as realised lexicogrammatically through modal expressions such as possible, perhaps, maybe, can, may, etc. These are resources of language, not of context. Once again, the authors conflate language and context, misunderstanding the stratified architecture of SFL.

League Table Of Visitors

Misunderstanding Interpersonal Meaning as Tenor

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 45, 55):

Support can be done through a range of heteroglossic proclaiming resources (Martin & White, 2005). In this case a position is endorsed, pronounced or concurred with, as in (26), but like (25) it renders the position it tenders.¹² 

Similarly in (27) Kristy’s mother supports the position that she will be home about the same time as Dee’s big kids get home by using probably.

 

¹² This example also illustrates the role of engagement in realising internal rendering. Here the of course is not rendering an opinion on whether they support or reject Indigenous lands being stolen, but rather is supporting this as a linguistic act – i.e. supporting it as true. We can contrast this with an external support – Fortunately, Indigenous lands were stolen, which is definitely not what is being said. Heteroglossia when used for rendering is often used for internal rendering in this sense, functioning as it does to manage the play of voices.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] Here the authors again rebrand the semantic system of ENGAGEMENT (White 1998) as their contextual system of tenor. In terms of Halliday's semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION, each instance of 'support' is an initiating move in an exchange: a statement. On the other hand, as Halliday (1994: 390) puts it:

Tenor refers to the statuses and role relationships; who is taking part in the interaction.

i.e. not to the language that enacts those statuses and role relationships.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory the difference between of course and fortunately is not one of internal vs external ‘rendering’, but one of interpersonal meaning — specifically, between asseverative and qualificative comment Adjuncts (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 190–2). Of course realises the meaning ‘obviously’ (asseverative), while fortunately realises the meaning ‘luckily’ (qualificative). These are clearly linguistic resources — part of the speaker’s meaning potential — not contextual roles. The authors misattribute these semantic choices to their model of tenor.

Misunderstanding Moves In An Exchange (Semantics) As Tenor (Context)

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 45, 55n):

In addition to heteroglossic denial, rejections can also occur through distancing (Martin & White, 2005). In these cases the speaker indicates they do not align with what is being proposed (though with lower stakes; see Chapter 5). As shown in (25) (from Doran, 2020b),

 

in these instances the proposition they are rejecting is in fact specified, so we have underlined it and drawn a horizontal arrow between the rendering and the tendering. Like the rejections above, this instance also tenders a new proposition centred on the claim – which itself can be negotiated. That is, there are three things going on in (25). First, the Toolkit is tendering the proposition that the word settlement ignores the reality of Indigenous lands being stolen; second, it is rejecting this position through the distancing of claim; and third it is tendering the proposition that The UNSW Diversity Toolkit is claiming that the word settlement ignores reality.¹¹

 ¹¹ We can see this by the fact that when rejecting this statement using polarity such as ‘No, it doesn’t', this could be read as rejecting either that The UNSW Diversity Toolkit claims, or that the word settlement ignores the reality of…

Reviewer Comments:

The authors once again misclassify semantic moves as contextual parameters. What they describe as ‘rejecting’, ‘tendering’, and ‘rendering’ are clearly moves within an exchange structure — that is, options in the interpersonal semantics of speech function. These are part of language, not context. By treating these semantic moves as components of tenor — rather than as interpersonal meanings that realise it — the authors conflate language with the social context it enacts. This signals a fundamental misunderstanding of the stratification hierarchy in SFL, and an inability to distinguish the semantic resources of language from the cultural context they realise.

The Notion That A Repeated Proposition Is Not A Proposition

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 44-5, 55n):

¹⁰ There is a question here as to whether No, I won’t additionally tenders a negative proposition, as we argued for the full clauses in (20)-(22) and (24). Our interpretation is that replaying the Subject and Finite without the Residue, as is done in No I won’t, means the turn is not putting forward any new proposition, and so is best read as simply rendering – reacting to what was said previously. It is only when there is some adjustment of the Mood (Subject and Finite) – what Halliday calls a shift in the modal responsibility (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014) – or the specification of Residue is there a new proposition tendered (Martin, 1992, p. 461ff). This is because any further rendering involving the same strategy will simply replay the Mood of the initial position:

You will be home late as well. – No I won’t. – Yes you will. –No you [sic] won’t etc. 

Having said that, some instances with this configuration would tender a new proposition, such as if the primary tone was placed on either the Subject and Finite to suggest some sort of contrast: 

- You will be home late as well. – No, I won’t; 

or if the Mood Adjunct and Mood are given on different tone groups: 

//No//^ I won’t//. 

Ultimately, evidence as to whether there is a new proposition being tendered will depend on how it is negotiated in the following discourse.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, here the authors confuse 'proposition' with 'new proposition', leading them to the self-contradictory conclusion that a repeated proposition is not a proposition.

[2] In terms of speech function, this exchange features four moves, all of which are propositions:

• You will be home late as well is the statement that initiates the exchange;
• No I won’t is a responding statement that contradicts the previous statement;
• Yes you will is a responding statement that contradicts the previous statement;
• No you I won’t is a responding statement that contradicts the previous statement.

See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 137).

[3] In the authors' terms, the proposition constitutes a 'tender' if it is subsequently 'rendered' (responded to), as in all the examples they provide.

Category Errors, Faulty Analogies, and Confusions Between Semantics and Context

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 44-5):

Here we are emphasising the similarities in tenor between rejection and support done dialogically and monologically.  

In terms of discourse semantics, this indicates similarities between heteroglossia, which offers resources for managing multiple voices, and negotiation (dialogica), which offers resources for managing multiple turns.  

Put another way, we are suggesting a parallel between (23), where the tendering and rendering is established across two turns, and (24) where the tendering and rendering occurs in a single turn.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] Here again the authors misunderstand language choices (tendering and rendering, rejection and support) as the cultural context of language (tenor). As Halliday (1994: 390) puts it:

Tenor refers to the statuses and role relationships; who is taking part in the interaction.

[2] Here the authors conflate the speaker’s semiotic resources — heteroglossia and negotiation — with the linguist’s modelling of those resources. To be clear, heteroglossia is the speaker’s resource for acknowledging other possible points of view (‘voices’), not a resource for “managing” them. Likewise, negotiation is the speaker’s system of potential moves in an exchange, not a resource for “managing” multiple turns.

[3] Here the authors set up the following proportionalities:

dialogue is to monologue as

heteroglossia is to negotiation as

two turns is to single turn

To be clear, proportional analogies rely on structural or functional equivalence: if A is to B as C is to D, then the relation between A and B must be of the same kind as the relation between C and D — whether it’s one of scale, category, realisation, or function.

But in this case, the analogy fails on all counts. Dialogue and monologue differ in interactional structure, not functional type; negotiation and heteroglossia belong to different semantic systems with distinct organising principles; and turns and voices are not even comparable units — the former are structural units of exchange, the latter semantic projections of alignment. No relational consistency holds across the three pairs.

[4] In terms of SPEECH FUNCTION, (23) is an initiating statement followed by a discretionary response — a contradiction — while (24) is simply an initiating statement with no response (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 137). The authors rebrand these moves in the exchange structure as ‘tender’ and ‘reject’, and misclassify them as features of context (tenor) rather than of language (semantics).

Negotiating Non-Finite Clauses As Tenor And Misunderstanding Engagement

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 44):

In (21), when her mother says I won’t be home later either she rejects a possible line of argument that Kristy could take that she will be home late (and tenders this as a proposition that could be argued).

And in (22) don’t get cranky, she pre-emptively rejects any acceptance of Kristy getting cranky.

As the analysis shows, in each of these cases the rejection is part of a full clause, which also tenders a (negative) proposition. The justification for this is that each of these positions can themselves be subsequently negotiated. As we will see, the use of engagement typically allows for both the rendering of a proposition while at the same time a tendering of another proposition. In the cases above, they reject an implied positive proposition, and tender the negative proposition.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This misconstrues interpersonal semantics (SPEECH FUNCTION) as interpersonal context (tenor), and rebrands initiating moves as 'tender' and responding moves as 'render' ('reject'). In SFL, the mother's move I won't be home late either is just a statement that initiates an exchange (though the word either suggests it could also be a response to a previous move).

However, the authors also interpret the mother's statement as a contradicting response (rejection) to a future move that her daughter Kristy didn't actually make. This is analogous to interpreting the statement a triangle doesn't have four sides as a response to the unspoken move a triangle does have four sides.

[2] Again, this misconstrues interpersonal semantics (SPEECH FUNCTION) as interpersonal context (tenor), and rebrands initiating moves as 'tender' and responding moves as 'render' ('reject'). In SFL, the mother's move Don't get cranky is a command that initiates an exchange.

However, the authors also interpret the mother's command as a response (rejection) to a future move that her daughter Kristy didn't actually make.

[3] To be clear, the analysis shows that the rejections are being home late and Kristy getting cranky. The patently false claim is that the non-finite clause being home late is part of the finite declarative clause I won't be home late either, and the non-finite clause Kristy getting cranky is part of the finite imperative clause Don't get cranky.

[4] To be clear, this justification is invalid on two counts:

• clauses cannot be negotiated if they are non-finite;
• clauses cannot be negotiated if they are not spoken.

[5] This conflates the system of engagement with the structure of speech function. Engagement does not involve the “rendering” or “tendering” of propositions. Engagement models the positioning of propositions within dialogic space, not their role in an exchange structure. The claim reflects a category error that misrepresents engagement as a system of interpersonal action rather than one of semantic alignment.

[6] To be clear, what is said to be rejected is a future response that was not made. And, trivially, (22) is a proposal, not a proposition.

Misunderstanding Engagement And Rebranding A Discretionary Response As Context

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 43-4):

Various heteroglossic options within engagement which acknowledge and engage with other voices allow speakers to support, reject or note meanings that may or may not have been put forward (Doran, 2020b). For Kristy and her mother, these resources are often drawn upon to reject each other’s positions. They most often do this through heteroglossic denial, realised through explicit negation. As Martin and White (2005) explain, negation is not simply the logical opposite of a positive; rather it works to acknowledge the positive in order to deny it. In this sense, both Kristy and her mother render rejections of positions that have not yet been tendered, so as to, in some sense, ‘head off’ possible lines of argument. 

For example in (20), when Kristy says, don’t want to go out today, she rejects through the n’t the idea that she would want to go out today (a curved arrow is used to indicate that the rejection is to something that hasn’t been previously said). At the same time, by using a full clause, she tenders the proposition that she does not want to go out.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This characterisation of engagement misrepresents the system's function. Engagement does not allow speakers to “support, reject or note meanings”; rather, it models how speakers position propositions with respect to alternative voices within a dialogic space. To describe engagement as supporting or rejecting meanings confuses semantic positioning with SPEECH FUNCTION. 

The phrase “meanings that may or may not have been put forward” further suggests that engagement tracks actual prior speech acts, rather than positioning utterances within a semantic space of potential viewpoints. This misunderstanding becomes foundational for several later claims.

[2] To be clear, don’t want to go out today is language, not context (tenor). In terms of SPEECH FUNCTION, as an initiating move ("tendering"), it is a statement.

But if it is interpreted as a response to an imaginary move ("rendering"), it could be any of the discretionary responses: rejection of an offer, refusal of a command, contradiction of a statement, or disclaimer to a question, because the SPEECH FUNCTION of the initiating move is unknown. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 137): 

Problems With The Second 'Rendering' System Network

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 42-3):

Adding these choices into our system network gives us Figure 2.2. In this figure the joint square bracket and brace means and/or. That is, one may choose to render or tender or both. Thus this network says that in tenor, one may tender a position or render a position or both at the same time. If rendering, this may address or note the position (with the various subtypes described for Figure 2.1 above), and any of these renderings may be done externally or internally.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, this network misrepresents a system of potential language options as a system of tenor, the interpersonal context that is realised by such language choices.

[2] To be clear, this network has no entry condition or realisation statements.

Rebranding Nominal Group Structure As Tenor

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 41):

In addition to being used in dialogue, internal rendering is often used to provide a ‘meta’ comment on language, often in service of establishing higher level periodicity (Martin & Rose, 2003/2007) and involving semiotic entities – such as question, statement etc. (Hao, 2020). 

This is illustrated in (17), where cultural critic Raymond Williams renders a question by 19th century Scottish cultural critic Thomas Carlyle as famous. This example also illustrates how rendering can be prospective of what is to come, rather than just retrospective.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, dialoging and commenting are languaging, and so not tenor, which is context, not language. This is the fundamental theoretical misunderstanding that invalidates the model tendered in this publication.

[2] Martin's 'periodicity' is his rebranding of writing pedagogy as linguistic theory. See the examinations of periodicity in Martin & Rose (2007) here.

[3] Hao's 'semiotic entity' is her rebranding of Halliday's 'discrete semiotic abstraction' (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 193-4). Hao was Martin's student and learnt her theorising from him.

[4] To be clear, this example of the authors' "tenor" is their rebranding of the grammatical relation between post-Deictic and Thing in nominal group structure:

Confusing Language With Theory

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 39):

More generally, the relatively simple distinctions we have introduced so far help us deal in broad terms with two of our main concerns with regard to dialogue. First, the options in rendering offer a set of resources for negotiating feelings in dialogue, and so bring together attitude and exchange in discourse semantics. Second, the conflation of tendering and rendering offers a resource for chaining stretches of dialogue together and realising prosodic and indefinitely extended phases of chat.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, the relatively simple distinctions the authors have introduced are those of Halliday's interpersonal semantics, rebranded and misunderstood as tenor.

[2] This confuses language with theory. These resources are those of language. The conflation of tendering and rendering is a way of modelling these resources. Moreover, this conflation merely acknowledges that responses can initiate further responses.

Rebranding Speech Function (Rejection Of Offer) As Tenor (Render: Reject)

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 38-9):

However in dialogue, tendering and rendering are regularly realised together in the same move. Indeed this is often the preferred method in conversation as it allows the chat to flow smoothly from one turn to the next, with each move both ‘looking backward’ in terms of rendering something that has been said and ‘looking forward’ by tendering something to be negotiated (related to what Eggins (1990, p. 271) calls ‘Janus’ moves, that relate both forward and backward in a conversation). For example …

 … the mother’s well how about I get you dressed instead functions in two ways – rendering Kristy’s proposal by rejecting it, and tendering a new proposal (that Kristy subsequently also rejects).

The possibility of both rendering and tendering at the same time allows conversations to unfold smoothly, by reducing the number of explicit rejections. This is important for affiliation. In discourse aiming to maintain solidarity, it obviously helps to minimise rejection and maximise agreement.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] Here again the authors confuse the languaging of interlocutors with the tenor relations between the interlocutors (context).

[2] As previously explained, tendering and rendering are speech function (semantics) rebranded as tenor (context). Tendering is an initiation, whereas rendering is a response, either expected or discretionary. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 137):

To be clear, the structure of the exchange in (10) is offer ^ rejection/offer ^ rejection. That is, Kristy initiates with an offer, her mother makes a discretionary response, a rejection, by initiating an alternative offer, to which Kirsty also makes a discretionary response, a rejection.

Problems With The First 'Rendering' System Network

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 37):

We can pull together the discussion so far as the set of preliminary options for rendering shown in the system network in Figure 2.1. 

 

This network outlines that when speaking, we have the option of tendering positions or rendering them. If rendering, we can address what has previously been said by enacting a stance of some kind, or we can simply note it and not give away our feelings. If we address these meanings, we can either support or reject them, and we can either do this in a way that directly confers this support or rejection (what Knight (2010a) calls ‘communing’ and ‘condemning’ affiliation), or defers it through laughter. These resources allow us to negotiate meanings used to enact our social relations in a nuanced way.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, the authors present this network as a model of tenor, that is, of who is taking part in cultural terms. However, as the authors themselves acknowledge, this network outlines options when speaking, which means that it is a model of language, not tenor, since tenor is context, not language. As this entire book makes plain, the authors do not understand the distinction between context and language, nor the realisation relation between them.

Moreover, the feature 'render' is the authors' rebranding of 'respond' in the semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION, with 'support' a rebranding of 'expected' and 'reject' a rebranding of 'discretionary'. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 136):

Of the other features in the authors' network, Figure 2.1, 'note' and 'defer' refer to responses that do not realise speech functions:

• 'note' refers to a backchannelling response, realised by protolanguage (Mm);
• 'defer' refers to laughing in response.

Misunderstanding Laughter As A Feature Of Tenor

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 35, 36):

Another possibility is to show our feelings by laughing at what is being put forward. Knight (2010a, 2010b) highlights the crucial importance of laughter in building solidarity in conversation.  

She argues it is a way of responding to something that pushes against shared values or knowledge – but in a ‘fun’ way (i.e., not in a way that requires outright rejection or condemnation). Laughing allows us to acknowledge that what is being said is 'unacceptable' in some sense, but that we all know it is unacceptable and so it’s not an issue. By implicating this shared knowledge, laughter in fact reinforces affiliation – we come closer. To put this more technically, Knight describes laughter as occurring when a person puts forward a coupling of attitude and ideation that wrinkles against assumed shared bond networks which align the speakers in the conversation. Rather than refusing to bond around an unacceptable coupling and so condemning the speaker, laughter allows the listener to ‘defer’ a direct reaction to what has been said, and express their understanding of alternative unspoken ‘real’ bonds that underpin the conversation. …

 In more detailed work, Knight (2011) explores the sound potential of laughter in terms of its articulation, prosody, and movement. Among a number of distinctions, she shows that different types of laughter can indicate positive or negative judgement of what is being said. In our terms, this means that laughter can also indicate support or rejection, in addition to deferring meaning.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, here the authors incongruously propose laughter as a feature of tenor, the cultural dimension of 'who is taking part'.

[2] To be clear, as semiosis, laughter is not language, since it does not have a stratified content plane. As protolanguage, in expressing emotive and cognitive states, it serves the personal microfunction (Halliday 2004 [1998]: 18). However, a way to get beyond the personal to the social is suggested by Halliday's linear taxonomy of complex systems, in which semiotic systems emerge from social systems. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 509):

… a social system is a biological system with the added component of "value" (which explains the need for a synoptic approach, since value is something that is manifested in forms of structure). A semiotic system, then, is a social system with the added component of "meaning".

On this basis, laughter can be understood as social in the sense of being biological plus value. The value, in this case, is the positive value triggered by laughter when it releases endorphins. To induce laughter in another is to instantiate a positive value in their neurological system, and mutual laughter is the mutual instantiation of positive value. It is the sharing of a positive value that can create a social bond.

[3] To be clear, in Knight's example, the laughter provides the social means of bonding the interlocutors, when their interpersonal semiosis does not.

[4] To be clear, as above, the laughter that supports activates a positive value in the interlocutors, thus bonding them, and the laughter that rejects activates a positive value in the those laughing and a negative value in those not laughing, thus not bonding them.

Rebranding Types Of Response (Speech Function) As Types Of Rendering (Tenor)

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 34):

So far, we have considered renderings that react positively to what is being tendered. We will say that these render support. But as Kristy shows in her conversation with her mother, we can also render rejections of something that has been put forward. In (5), for example, Kristy rejects her mother’s proposal that she get dressed.

And when Ruth does something to annoy Kristy, she also forcefully rejects this:

… This gives us a distinction for types of rendering – opposing support to reject. This system allows us to make clear our thoughts and feelings about what people are saying, and thus plays a major role in terms of how we affiliate and disaffiliate with one another.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is language (exchange), not context (tenor). The 'tender' by the mother is the authors' rebranding of an initiating offer, and the 'render' by Kristy is their rebranding of a discretionary response, a rejection.

[2] To be clear, the 'tender' by Ruth is not even language, let alone tenor. The 'render' by Kristy is therefore not a responding move, but an initiating move, a command.

[3] To be clear, the authors' tenor distinction between support and reject is their rebranding of the interpersonal semantic distinction between expected and discretionary responses in the system of speech function. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 137):

[4] To be clear, to be concerned with 'thoughts and feelings about what people are saying', rather than 'what people are saying', is to take a cognitive approach to the exchange structure of interpersonal semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION (misunderstood as tenor). The cognitive approach to meaning belongs to a different tradition whose assumptions are inconsistent with the assumptions of the tradition to which SFL Theory belongs. See Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 415-8).

Misrepresenting Exchange Responses As Tenor

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 33, 34):

Another resource for rendering involves the use of positive or negative attitude that targets the tendered proposition. This is illustrated in the following sequence from a high school physics class in which a student tenders a description of a physics principle known as Bohr’s first postulate. The teacher renders this move with the positive evaluation Good (what in a pedagogical context Rose (2018) calls an Affirm move).

In classrooms, teachers will often render support for a students’ response simply by replaying it – (3) for example follows the teacher asking: ‘And what did Maxwell say that accelerating charges do? They emit…’.

In conversational texts, someone can render a position by replaying the evaluative attitude, rather than the ideational meanings themselves – as in the text message exchange in (4).

These examples highlight the parallels between polarity in the lexicogrammar (Mood Adjuncts such as yes and no, not and never) and 'polarity' in discourse semantics (realised through positive or negative attitude, e.g., good vs bad; (Martin, 2020)). Both can be used to support or to reject a tendered proposition. …

Tendering and rendering offer a basic choice for negotiating meaning in tenor – as speakers put a position forward or to react to that position. Both tendering and rendering can be enacted in a number of ways to perform a wide range of functions.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is language (exchange), not context (tenor). The 'tender' by the student is the authors' rebranding of an initiating statement, and the 'render' by the teacher is their rebranding of a responding acknowledgement, a statement realised by an ellipsed clause that's good.

[2] Again, this is language (exchange), not context (tenor). The 'tender' by the student is the authors' rebranding of an initiating statement, and the 'render' by the teacher is their rebranding of a responding acknowledgement, a statement.

[3] Again, this is language (exchange), not context (tenor). The 'tender' by Jessie is the authors' rebranding of an initiating statement, and the 'render' by Alex is their rebranding of a responding acknowledgement, a statement realised by an ellipsed clause that's pretty unexpected.

[4] To be clear, it is the speech function realised by the ellipsed clause that acknowledges or contradicts the initiating proposition. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 137):

[5] To be clear, this confuses language (negotiating meaning in discourse) with context (tenor: who is taking part in terms of the culture).

Problems With A Tenor System Known As Positioning

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 32):

The following section will explore this by introducing resources in a tenor system known as POSITIONING. As a general starting point, we will make a distinction between two choices available for speakers in dialogue. The first involves tendering meanings, where something is put forward to be negotiated or developed. This choice is in some sense prospective – it ‘looks forward’ in conversation, tabling a position for others to react to. The second choice involves rendering, by proffering some sort of opinion on what has been put forward. This option is in a sense retrospective – it ‘looks backward’, by reacting to meaning. In their simplest manifestations, tendering and rendering can be done in sequence in a dialogue. This is illustrated by Kristy and her mother in example (1). Arrows are used to indicate the connection between tender/render pairs.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, the tenor system of POSITIONING is a cognitive approach to the exchange structure of interpersonal semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION. That is, it is semantics misunderstood as context, and formulated on the basis of assumptions that are inconsistent with the approach of SFL Theory. The system's two choices, tendering vs rendering, are the authors' rebrandings of initiating vs responding moves in an exchange.

[2] To be clear, in this exchange, which is language not tenor — the tenor is who is taking part: mother and daughter — the tendering moves are (initiating) statements and the rendering moves are (responding) acknowledgements. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 137):

Problems With The Authors' 'Resource Guide'

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 26-7):

As will be clear form this introduction, tenor is one module in the overall model of language and social context assumed here. Because of its position in the architecture of SFL (between genre and language and alongside field and mode) we draw on a wide range of descriptions of English – some of which may not be familiar to readers. Below we note some useful introductory resources for key descriptions, as well as the key reference books for each area.

Paralanguage
Martin, J. R. & M. Zappavigna (2019) Embodied meaning: a systemic functional perspective on body language. Functional Linguistics 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-018-0065-9 

Ngo, T., Hood, S., Martin, J.R., Painter, C., Smith B.A. and Zappavigna, M. (2022) Modelling Paralanguage Using Systemic Functional Semiotics. London: Bloomsbury. …

Discourse semantics
Chapters 2 (appraisal) and 7 (negotiation) of Martin and Rose (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum. 

Martin, J.R. (1992) English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the misunderstanding of strata and metafunctions as modules has persisted since Martin (1992: 390, 488):

Each of the presentations of linguistic text forming resources considered above adopted a modular perspective. As far as English Text is concerned this has two main dimensions: stratification, and within strata, metafunction. …

The problem addressed is a fundamental concern of modular models of semiosis — namely, once modules are distinguished, how do they interface? What is the nature of the conversation among components?

[2] For a meticulous review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019) that identifies many of its misunderstandings of SFL Theory, see Martin & Zappavigna's Model Of Paralanguage.

[3] For a meticulous review of Ngo et al. that identifies many of its misunderstandings of SFL Theory, see Modelling Paralanguage Using Systemic Functional Semiotics.

[4] For a meticulous review of Martin and Rose (2007) that identifies many of its misunderstandings of SFL Theory, see Working With Discourse: Meaning Beyond The Clause.

[5] For a meticulous review of Martin (1992) that identifies many of its misunderstandings of SFL Theory, see English Text: System And Structure.

The Fundamental Misunderstanding Of Tenor In This Book

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 26):

This book focuses on the resources we use to enact our social relations. It explores how we put meanings forward and react to them; it maps how we build vast networks of values that help us align or disalign with things and people; and it describes how we adjust all of these meaning so as to make clear how we feel about them all. In short, it describes how we engage with the world interpersonally, and offers tools for being able to see this. …

While ours is a new approach to tenor, our sincere hope is that is can be read as a respectful one – making room across hierarchies for development of all the work on social relations that has been done. So thanks to our mentors; and our very best wishes to researchers building on the framework proposed here.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, the resources we use to enact our social relations as meaning are the systems of the interpersonal metafunction of language. The authors, however, confuse these resources with tenor, the interpersonal dimension of context: the culture as a semiotic system.

The Basic Problems With The Core Tenor Systems: Positioning And Purview

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 24):

POSITIONING and PURVIEW form the core of the tenor resources we will present in this book. Importantly, they are not just resources of dialogue, but resources of monologue as well. This typically draws on resources of evaluative language, which in SFL are described in terms of ATTITUDE and ENGAGEMENT (Martin & White, 2005).

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, as previously demonstrated, these core tenor systems presented in this book are cognitive approaches to the exchange structure of interpersonal semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION. That is, they are semantics misunderstood as context, and formulated on the basis of assumptions that are inconsistent with the approach of SFL Theory.

The Problem With The Notion Of Purview

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 23):

In Chapter 3 we will describe the difference between the genuine question of ‘What are you on about Jodie’ and the rhetorical question of ‘and did I get to go’ in terms of a difference in purview that Jodie and her mother have over the knowledge. In the genuine question, Jodie’s mother gives purview over the knowledge about what Jodie’s talking about to Jodie and thus allows her to answer as she pleases. But in the rhetorical question, Jodie makes clear that she expects both of them to know the answer to the question – that is, they both have purview over the knowledge. When positioned in this way, Jodie’s mother cannot really give an answer other than the one that is expected, because Jodie has positioned them both to agree. In Chapter 3, we will illustrate that we are regularly nuancing purview in this way to help position others to respond in particular ways. We will show that it is a rich resource for enacting social relations in terms of nuancing interpersonal control and responsibility.

Reviewer Comments:

Again, moves in an exchange realise the system of SPEECH FUNCTION, and so are interpersonal potential at the level of semantics, not at the level of context (tenor).

Again, in interpreting the meanings of the exchange in terms of the knowledge of the interlocutors, the authors have adopted a cognitive perspective on language. However, this is inconsistent with SFL, the theory the authors are concerned with expanding. 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.

To be clear, the intellectual source of the authors' 'purview' is the work on 'epistemic authority' in social psychology, as formulated by the sociologists John Heritage and Geoffrey Raymond, in their paper The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction (Social Psychology Quarterly 2005, Vol. 68, No. 1, 15-38). The term 'purview' serves the social function of a buzzword.

The Problem With The System Of Positioning

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 23):

How we put forward positions and react to them is described in Chapters 2 and 3 within a system called POSITIONING. Chapter 2 focuses on resources for rendering meanings and Chapter 3 focuses on resources for tendering. 

When we tender meanings, we will describe different ways in which we can position others to respond. For example, when Jodie’s mother asks at the beginning of the conversation ‘What are you on about Jodie?’, she asks this as a genuine question. With this question she positions Jodie as the one who has the knowledge for this exchange. 

By contrast, later on in the conversation, Jodie notes that her not being allowed to go to the pub contrasts with her friend Billie, who is also six, getting to go to the pub. Her mother notes that this is because it was her Daddy’s birthday. But Jodie is not convinced and insists by saying ‘and did I get to go’. Although this is a question and grammatically an interrogative, Jodie is not genuinely asking for information – both Jodie and her mother know full well that she was not allowed to go to the pub. Rather, Jodie is using this to emphasise her point that she thinks there is a double standard at play. 

 Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, tendering and rendering are moves in an exchange that realise the system of SPEECH FUNCTION, and so are interpersonal potential at the level of semantics, not at the level of context (tenor). The system of POSITIONING is thus interpersonal semantics misunderstood as tenor.

[2] To be clear, in interpreting the meanings of the exchange in terms of the knowledge of the interlocutors, the authors have adopted a cognitive perspective on language. However, this is inconsistent with SFL, the theory the authors are concerned with expanding. 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.

Rebranding Exchange Structure As Tendering And Rendering

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 22-3):

How then can we re-model tenor as a resource for enacting social relations? We can first look at how we put forward meanings and share them with others. In this book, we will suggest a basic distinction in how we enact social relations is between resources for tendering meanings to be engaged with, and reacting to or rendering meanings that have been put forward. For example…

 

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the resource for enacting social relations as meaning is the interpersonal metafunction of language. Tenor, on the other hand, is 'who is taking part' in the situation in cultural terms, as realised by the interpersonal metafunction of language.

[2] To be clear, putting forward meanings is language, not tenor, and the tendering and rendering of meanings is the authors' (dumbed down*) rebranding of the exchange structure that realises Halliday's interpersonal semantic system of speech function. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 136-7):

[3] To be clear, Jodie's 'tender' is an initiating statement and command, and the mother's 'render: reject' is the discretionary response 'refusal'.

[4] To be clear, the mother's 'tender' is an initiating statement, and Jodie's 'render' is the expected response 'acknowledgement'. Jodie's 'tender' is another initiating statement.

[5] To be clear, the mother's 'tender' is an initiating statement, and Jodie's 'render: reject' is the discretionary response 'contradiction'. Its additional function of 'tender' is its function as the initiating statement of a further exchange.

* Note that speech function distinguishes between 'refusal' and 'contradiction', but the authors' "tenor" does not.

Misunderstanding Social Context As Non-Semiotic

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 21):

As this overview shows, field, tenor, and mode as variables within the realisation hierarchy are not the be-all and end-all of our view of social context. To take seriously the integration of semiosis and society, we need a much richer model. 

Our ultimate aim in this book is to develop a model of tenor (realisation) which accounts for the contribution interpersonal meaning makes to negotiating association (instantiation) by way of membering communities in culture (individuation) – so that we can move toward comprehensively appreciating the interaction of the social and the semiotic.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As the review of this overview demonstrates, this claim is made on the basis of the authors' misunderstandings of the architecture of language as proposed by SFL Theory. It is not a richer model that is needed, but a richer understanding of the model.

[2] This seriously misunderstands the notion of social context. In SFL Theory, context is semiotic: it is the culture modelled as a semiotic system. In Hjelmslevian terms, context is the content plane, and language the expression plane, of a connotative semiotic. The relation between context and language is symbolic identity; they two levels of abstraction of the one identity. Not only is context realised by language, but language construes — intellectually constructs — context.

[3] This further compounds the authors' misunderstanding of context as non-semiotic by misunderstanding the stratal relation between context and language as an interaction of modules — a misunderstanding that has persisted since Martin (1992: 390, 488):

Each of the presentations of linguistic text forming resources considered above adopted a modular perspective. As far as English Text is concerned this has two main dimensions: stratification, and within strata, metafunction. …

The problem addressed is a fundamental concern of modular models of semiosis — namely, once modules are distinguished, how do they interface? What is the nature of the conversation among components?

ChatGPT Comments:

Review Critique: Misunderstanding the Nature of Context and the Architecture of the System

This passage encapsulates several of the core misunderstandings that undermine the theoretical basis of the book. The claim that “field, tenor, and mode as variables within the realisation hierarchy are not the be-all and end-all of our view of social context” appears to position the authors’ model as an enrichment of the standard SFL framework. But as the review of the preceding excerpts makes clear, this claim is not based on a deeper extension of theory, but on fundamental misunderstandings of the theory’s architecture. What is needed is not a richer model, but a richer understanding of the model already in place.

First, this passage seriously misconstrues the nature of social context in SFL theory. In SFL, context is not external to semiosis; it is a semiotic system. Specifically, it is the culture modelled as a meaning potential — a higher-order stratum in the symbolic hierarchy, realised by language and construed through it. In Hjelmslevian terms (which underpin the theory’s architecture), context is the content plane, and language the expression plane, of a connotative semiotic. That is, language is the semiotic realisation of culture. To treat context as if it were non-semiotic — or as if it required an “integration” with semiosis — is to misread both levels of abstraction and the relation of symbolic identity that connects them.

This confusion is exacerbated by a deeper and longstanding theoretical error: the treatment of strata as modules which “interface” or “interact,” as if the symbolic architecture were composed of independent processing systems rather than levels of abstraction. This modular metaphor appears explicitly in Martin (1992: 390, 488), and is reproduced here in the idea that semiosis and society must be “integrated” through new interfacing mechanisms like “association” and “membering.” But in a properly stratified semiotic model, no such interface is required: context and language are distinct projections of the same meaning-making potential, realised through symbolic identity — not through interaction or modular communication.

The result is a theoretical incoherence: the authors propose a model of tenor that draws together realisation, instantiation, and individuation, but do so by treating them as separate “modules” that must somehow be coordinated, rather than as perspectival dimensions of a unified semiotic system. They offer a narrative of “integrating” the social and the semiotic, but in doing so, they detach the social from the semiotic, treating context as if it were outside the system, rather than a stratum within it.

In short, the passage illustrates a conceptual drift from SFL’s foundational principles. The so-called “integration” of semiosis and society presented here presupposes a false separation of what SFL already models as integrated through stratification, realisation, and symbolic identity. This drift not only undermines the theoretical coherence of the proposed tenor model — it also obscures the elegance and explanatory power of the existing systemic-functional framework.