Misconstruing Field As Ideational Language

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 18-9):

This latter possibility of considering register variables as resources for meaning has recently been developed in (Doran & Martin, 2021) for field. In that model, field is mapped as a resource for construing phenomena – either statically as a set of relations between items, or dynamically as sets of activities and their moments, alongside their associated properties. These general systems are outlined in Figure 1.8 below.

From a dynamic perspective, phenomena are construed as goings on (e.g. player serving^player volleying^point ends); from a static perspective, phenomena are construed as things (e.g. a point, game, match, player, umpire; ball, racquet). And either goings on or items can be propertied (e.g. serve hard, quick game).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, this simply misconstrues context (field) as the ideational function of language: the construal of experience as meaning.

[2] To be clear, this static perspective on field is the language that realises a field: taxonomic relations of lexical items.

[3] To be clear, this dynamic perspective on field is the language that realises a field: temporally sequenced figures.

[4] To be clear, an 'associated property' in field is the language that realises a field: quality realised as Manner, Epithet etc.