The Problem With Field As 'A Resource For Construing Phenomena'

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 21):

So instead of classifying fields as say horizontal or vertical, or as singulars or regions (as in Bernstein, 1996/2000) or as science, social science or humanities (e.g. Martin, 1992; Martin, 2007a, 2007b), or as ‘personal toilet’ or ‘games’ (Halliday, 1978), field can be reconstrued as a resource for construing phenomena. These resources can then be tuned in to relevant ideational systems in language (across strata) as far as realisation is concerned and the results coupled with interpersonal and/or textual meanings as required from the perspective of instantiation (i.e., mass).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This confuses context and language. It is the ideational metafunction of language that is the resource for construing experience as meaning (phenomena). Field is the ideational dimension of the context of construing experience.

[2] To be clear, these resources already are the ideational systems of language.

[3] As previously demonstrated in the review of Rethinking Context: Realisation, Instantiation, And Individuation In Systemic Functional Linguistics (Doran et al 2024):

• 'mass' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.
• 'technicality' is the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.
• 'iconisation' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.
• 'aggregation' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.