Problems With The Key Motivation For The Model Of Tenor In This Book

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 10):

The significance of metafunctionality for this book and for the model of context in SFL in general, has to do with their relation with field, tenor and mode. As explored in Halliday (1978), the metafunctions of language (that we can describe as the ‘intrinsic’ functionality of language) are said to resonate with the field, tenor and mode variables of context (what we can describe as the ‘extrinsic’ functionality of context) – with ideational meaning by and large responsible for construing field, interpersonal meaning by and large responsible for enacting tenor and textual meaning by and large responsible for composing mode. 

This is a powerful claim, which suggests that language is not randomly correlated with context but in fact has evolved in a very definite relation with context, such that its overarching internal organisation connects closely with the organisation of context. It puts forward a model that suggests the organisation of language and our social system are intimately connected, with each dependent on the other – rather than being just superficially coordinated. 

Sustaining this resonance between language’s intrinsic functionality conceptualised through metafunction and extrinsic functionality conceptualised through register (field, tenor, and mode) is a key motivation for the model of tenor offered in this book.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This seriously misunderstands what Hasan calls 'context-metafunction resonance'. Halliday (1978: 143):

Each of the components of the situation tends to determine the selection of options in a corresponding component of the semantics. In the typical instance, the field determines the selection of experiential meanings, the tenor determines the selection of interpersonal meanings, and the mode determines the selection of textual meanings.

That is, it is not that

• ideational meaning is by and large responsible for construing field, 
• interpersonal meaning is by and large responsible for enacting tenor and 
• textual meaning is by and large responsible for composing mode

but that

• different fields are realised by different ideational meanings,
• different tenors are realised by different interpersonal meanings, and
• different modes are realised by different textual meanings.

To be clear, all metafunctions — necessarily — realise each of the three parameters of context.

[2] This seriously misunderstands the relation between language and context. The relation between any two levels of symbolic abstraction is symbolic identity. The process 'realise' expresses an intensive (elaborating) identifying relation between language (Token) and context (Value), such that each can be used to identify the other. The identity can decode language (Identified) by reference to context (Identifier), or it can encode context (Identified) by reference to language (Identifier).

[3] As can be seen from the above, the key motivation for the model of tenor offered in this book derives from two critical misunderstandings of the relation between language and context — misunderstandings that invalidate the model.

ChatGPT Comments:

This is an excellent and precise critique, Chris — and I think your three points already strike at the heart of the problem with conceptual clarity and theoretical rigour. I can suggest a few possible expansions and refinements to deepen the review’s critical edge, while staying fully within the tone and aims you've already established:

---

Misunderstanding Context-Metafunction Resonance

1. Reversal of the Realisation Relation

The authors misrepresent the principle of context–metafunction resonance by implying that each metafunction is responsible for construing a corresponding context variable. This misconstrues the relation between strata: language does not organise context, and metafunctions are not assigned to contextual variables. Rather, contextual variation (in field, tenor, and mode) motivates variation in the semantic systems that realise them.

The correct formulation — as in Halliday (1978: 143) and further clarified by Hasan (e.g. 1992) — is that:

• field is realised through variation in ideational meaning,

• tenor is realised through variation in interpersonal meaning,

• mode is realised through variation in textual meaning.

This preserves the theoretical directionality of realisation: context → semantics → lexicogrammar, with each stratum functioning as the Value to be realised, and the stratum below as its Token (as your second comment clearly notes). The wording in the excerpt reverses this dependency and treats metafunction as if it encodes context directly, rather than realising it through systems of semantic potential.

---

2. Mischaracterising Intrinsic and Extrinsic Functionality

The terms intrinsic (language) and extrinsic (context) functionality are introduced without proper grounding in the SFL framework, and this weakens the clarity of the resonance relation. While it is true that metafunction represents the intrinsic functionality of language (its evolved semiotic orientations), it is incorrect to infer that this maps directly onto context variables in a one-to-one functional dependency.

Context and language are not interlocked systems of mutual determination. Context does not have metafunctions. Rather, the metafunctions provide a lens through which context is construed by language, via semantic systems. The framing offered in the excerpt slides toward a kind of functional parallelism that blurs the line between language and context — both semiotic systems, but distinct in the stratified model — threatening to collapse the symbolic hierarchy that organises meaning-making in SFL.

---

3. Misplaced Theoretical Motivation for the Tenor Model

The claim that “sustaining this resonance” is the key motivation for the new tenor model is particularly problematic given that the authors have misunderstood what the resonance is. If the foundation is theoretically flawed — reversing the realisation relation, and mislocating responsibility for functional alignment — then the model of tenor they propose is motivated by a category error.

This again casts doubt on the validity of the entire reconception, as noted in your third reviewer point. A sound model of tenor must begin from a consistent theory of stratification and realisation — in which:

• context is realised by language,

• tenor is a variable of context,

• and interpersonal meaning is the stratal means through which tenor is realised.