Misunderstanding Context As The Language That Realises It

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 13-4):

At this point it is important to stop and ask where categories used to classify tenor relations such as this come from. It is not clear, for example, whether the categories arise from patterns in language. Neither is it clear how these categories can be clearly linked with choices in language – this is especially the case if we wish to keep some link between interpersonal systems and tenor. … 

If we want a model of social semiosis that can show how language shapes and is shaped by context (and vice versa), we need something that can show the relation between them. Accordingly in this book we will take a different tack, and think about how field, tenor and mode can be characterised as resources for construing phenomena, enacting social relations, and composing information flow. In the next section we review the work which has built up to this complementary perspective.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the categories of tenor (Value) are realised by patterns in language (Token). The authors' inability to understand the relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction is the source of all the theoretical inconsistencies in this work.

[2] To be clear, this model already exists. It is called Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, and the relation between context and language is one of symbolic identity. Together context and language constitute a connotative semiotic, with context as its content plane (Value) and language as its expression plane (Token). Context is realised by language and language realises context, and in doing so, language construes (intellectually constructs) context.

[3] To be clear, the 'different tack' taken by the authors in this book is to reinterpret context as the language that realises it. Again, the authors' inability to understand the relation between two levels of symbolic abstraction is the source of all the theoretical inconsistencies in this work.