The 3 Fundamental Misunderstandings That Invalidate The Model In This Book

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 18):

Reconsidering context in this way in turn opens up the possibility 

• of reconceiving (from the perspective of instantiation) the types of field classifications pursued by previous models as syndromes of technicality, iconisation and aggregation (mass); 
• of reconceiving types of mode as syndromes of implicitness, negotiability, and iconicity (presence); and 
• of reconceiving types of tenor as syndromes of reciprocity and proliferation (association). 

And this in turn opens up the possibility of abandoning the classificatory approach to modelling field, tenor, and mode along the realisation hierarchy – and replacing it with a social semiotic perspective on register variables as resources for construing phenomena (field), enacting social relations (tenor) and composing information flow (mode). 

Developing SFL along these lines in turn opens up the possibility of re-confirming the resonance between field, tenor, and mode and metafunctions that is put at risk by research dedicated to classifying fields, tenor, and modes in relatively common-sense terms.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors' first proposal is to miscontrue context as language; specifically, to

• misconstrue contextual field as the ideational meaning of language (mass) — sub-classified as ideational meaning (technicality), interpersonal meaning (iconisation) and textual meaning (aggregation);
• misconstrue contextual mode as the textual meaning of language (presence) — sub-classified as ideational meaning (iconicity), interpersonal meaning (negotiability) and textual meaning (implicitness); and
• misconstrue contextual tenor as the interpersonal meaning of language (association).

[2] To be clear, the authors' second proposal is to misconstrue language as context; specifically, to

• misconstrue  construing experience as ideational meaning as field;
• misconstrue enacting social relations as interpersonal meaning as tenor; and
• misconstrue composing information flow as textual meaning as mode.

[3] This is misleading because it is not true. On the one hand, context-metafunction resonance is not put at risk by Halliday's characterisation of field, tenor and mode, and on the other, if it were put at risk, the authors' reconceptions could not assist in this regard, since they confuse context with language.

As previously explained, the authors misunderstand context-metafunction resonance to mean an exclusive relation between context and language on the basis of metafunction. However, what context-metafunction resonance actually means is that

• differences in field are realised by differences in ideational meaning,
• differences in tenor are realised by differences in interpersonal meaning, and
• differences in mode are realised by differences in textual meaning.