Rebranding Exchange Structure As Tendering And Rendering

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 22-3):

How then can we re-model tenor as a resource for enacting social relations? We can first look at how we put forward meanings and share them with others. In this book, we will suggest a basic distinction in how we enact social relations is between resources for tendering meanings to be engaged with, and reacting to or rendering meanings that have been put forward. For example…

 

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the resource for enacting social relations as meaning is the interpersonal metafunction of language. Tenor, on the other hand, is 'who is taking part' in the situation in cultural terms, as realised by the interpersonal metafunction of language.

[2] To be clear, putting forward meanings is language, not tenor, and the tendering and rendering of meanings is the authors' (dumbed down*) rebranding of the exchange structure that realises Halliday's interpersonal semantic system of speech function. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 136-7):

[3] To be clear, Jodie's 'tender' is an initiating statement and command, and the mother's 'render: reject' is the discretionary response 'refusal'.

[4] To be clear, the mother's 'tender' is an initiating statement, and Jodie's 'render' is the expected response 'acknowledgement'. Jodie's 'tender' is another initiating statement.

[5] To be clear, the mother's 'tender' is an initiating statement, and Jodie's 'render: reject' is the discretionary response 'contradiction'. Its additional function of 'tender' is its function as the initiating statement of a further exchange.

* Note that speech function distinguishes between 'refusal' and 'contradiction', but the authors' "tenor" does not.