Misunderstanding Tenor As Organising Social Relations

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 7):

In this book we introduce a new model for analysing how people negotiate social relations in discourse. We do so within the general theoretical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), by developing its conception of social context. The particular parameter of context we focus on is what is known in SFL as tenor. In SFL, tenor has typically been considered the contextual variable that organises our social relations – the 'roles played by those taking part’ in a situation, ‘the values that the interactants imbue’ the activity with (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 33) and the relationships between addressees or interactants (Gregory, 1967; Hasan, 2020). Or, more broadly, the ‘general dimensions of social relations’ (Poynton, 1990a, p. 70) and their negotiation (Martin, 1992, p. 523).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in the model being used here, negotiation is an interpersonal system located in language: on Martin's stratum of discourse semantics. It will be seen, throughout this book, that the authors repeatedly confuse interpersonal semantics with tenor, the interpersonal dimension of the cultural context that is realised by language.

[2] To be clear, this is the basic misunderstanding that undermines the authors' new model of tenor. In SFL Theory, tenor does not organise social relations. Tenor refers to the interpersonal relations between interactants, speaker and addressee, that are realised by the choices they make in language, especially interpersonal choices.

Importantly, in SFL Theory, context refers to the culture as a semiotic system. This means that it is of the semiotic order of experience, not of the material order.

ChatGPT Comments:

Further Thoughts and Implications:

1. Tenor as Interpersonal, Not Organisational: The misunderstanding of tenor as something that "organises" social relations overlooks the nuanced role that tenor plays within SFL. Tenor does not structure social relations directly but is the medium through which interpersonal dynamics are realised in discourse. It is essential to recognise that tenor operates on the level of the interaction itself rather than attempting to encapsulate all social structures.

2. Semiotic Context and Its Relationship to Language: The authors’ conflation of interpersonal semantics with the broader concept of tenor highlights a fundamental issue in how SFL views context. Context in SFL is not just a backdrop to language; it is part of the semiotic order that shapes meaning. The failure to distinguish between these layers leads to an oversimplification of how social relations are negotiated and represented in discourse.

3. The Importance of Stratal Clarity: This confusion between interpersonal semantics and tenor shows the importance of maintaining clarity across strata in SFL analysis. Tenor should be located at the level of the cultural context, not within the interpersonal semantics of discourse. Without clear distinctions, we risk misrepresenting how meaning is structured and communicated.

4. Potential for Clarification: One way to address this misunderstanding would be to revisit the relationship between tenor and the interpersonal metafunction in SFL. By emphasising that tenor is about the configuration of relationships between participants within a given discourse, rather than an organising force of those relations, a more accurate and functional interpretation could emerge.

5. Beyond the Text: Tenor in Social Interaction: While the authors focus on the linguistic realisation of tenor, it would also be valuable to consider how tenor extends beyond text into lived social contexts. By focusing on the realisation of social relations through language, rather than treating them as structural entities, we could gain a richer understanding of how people navigate power, identity, and interpersonal dynamics.