Misunderstanding Language As Dynamic And Static Perspectives On Field

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 19-20):

For both the dynamic and static perspective there are further options in play (Figure 1.9).

An activity can be presented as a single event (an ‘unmomented activity’, e.g., Alcaraz won the match) or it can be divided into moments of that activity (a ‘momented’ activity, e.g., Alcaraz won the first set, Rudd won the second, Alcaraz won the third and also won the fourth). If momented, the relationship can be one of implication where the unfolding activities are related by contingency where one necessarily follows another (e.g., Djokovic hit the line judge with the ball between points and so was automatically defaulted); alternatively they can be related by expectancy, where the unfolding is not born of necessity, but is probabilistic or expectant (as in the 2022 US Open final example above – Alcaraz won the first set, Rudd won the second, Alcaraz won the third and also won the fourth). 

For all these possibilities there is also the option of construing an activity as cyclical (e.g., players play the Australian Open, then the French Open, then Wimbledon, then the US Open, before again playing the Australian Open...); or the activity can be linear, and if linear then culminative (e.g., the serve hit the back wall) or unending (e.g., Tennis is played around the world). 

Turning to a static perspective, an item can be noted individually (e.g., ace) or taxonomised, via classification (e.g., his second serve was an ace) or via composition (e.g., my first racquet was made of wood and natural gut).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, this misconstrues language as context. An "unmomented activity" is a clause realising a figure, and a "momented activity" is a paratactically extending clause complex realising a sequence. In Martin (1992), such activity sequences are located in field, but in Martin & Rose (2007), they are located in experiential discourse semantics.

[2] This again misconstrues language as context. This is a paratactically enhancing clause complex realising a sequence. The relation between the clauses is cause, not contingency.

[3] This again misconstrues language as context. This is a paratactically enhancing clause complex realising a sequence. The paratactic and hypotactic relations between the clauses are temporal.

[4] This again misconstrues language as context. The "culminative" and "unending" linear activities are both clauses realising figures.

[5] This again misconstrues language as context. The individual item is a lexical item, the classification taxonomy is a set of hyponymically related lexical items, and the composition taxonomy is a set of meronymically related lexical items.