Some Of The Problems With Genre And Register As Strata Of Social Context

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 8):

In addition we will treat social context as involving two strata: genre and register. For practical purposes genre can be interpreted as modelling context as a system of staged, goal-oriented social processes realised through register – the latter comprising field, tenor and mode (Martin, 1992; Martin & Rose, 2008). More technically, genre is a supervenient system realised through choices in register (after Martin, 1984, 1992, 1999, 2014).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, Martin's contextual stratum of genre confuses mode (textual context), semantic structure (non-metafunctional language) and text type (register of language viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation).

The confusion of genre with mode, the role played by language in terms of the culture, can be seen in genre systems, such as the following from Martin & Rose (2008: 7), where each feature is a role played by language:

The confusion of genre with semantic structure can be seen in genre structure, where each stage is an element of text structure. For example, Martin & Rose (2008: 52):

The confusion of genre with text type is explicit in Martin's characterisation of 'genre'. Martin & Rose (2007: 7):

We use the term genre in this book to refer to different types of texts that enact various types of social contexts.

In short, Martin's stratum of genre, in SFL terms, is concerned with semantic structures that vary for text types (registers) that realise different modes.

[2] To be clear, in rebranding context as register, Martin confuses functional varieties of language (registers) with the contextual parameters that they realise.

[3] For evidence of the above, see the reasoned arguments in the meticulous reviews of Martin (1992) and Martin & Rose (2007).

[4] To be clear, this is a misunderstanding and misapplication of 'supervenient'. See, for example here.

[5] To be clear, this proposes that the choice between recount and narrative, for example, is realised by choices in field (what's going on in terms of the culture), tenor (who's participating, in terms of the culture) and mode (the role of language, in terms of the culture). That is, the choice between recount and narrative is realised by choices such as biology vs chemistry (field), boss vs employee (tenor), and written vs spoken (mode).