Misunderstanding Moves In An Exchange (Semantics) As Tenor (Context)

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 45, 55n):

In addition to heteroglossic denial, rejections can also occur through distancing (Martin & White, 2005). In these cases the speaker indicates they do not align with what is being proposed (though with lower stakes; see Chapter 5). As shown in (25) (from Doran, 2020b),

 

in these instances the proposition they are rejecting is in fact specified, so we have underlined it and drawn a horizontal arrow between the rendering and the tendering. Like the rejections above, this instance also tenders a new proposition centred on the claim – which itself can be negotiated. That is, there are three things going on in (25). First, the Toolkit is tendering the proposition that the word settlement ignores the reality of Indigenous lands being stolen; second, it is rejecting this position through the distancing of claim; and third it is tendering the proposition that The UNSW Diversity Toolkit is claiming that the word settlement ignores reality.¹¹

 ¹¹ We can see this by the fact that when rejecting this statement using polarity such as ‘No, it doesn’t', this could be read as rejecting either that The UNSW Diversity Toolkit claims, or that the word settlement ignores the reality of…

Reviewer Comments:

The authors once again misclassify semantic moves as contextual parameters. What they describe as ‘rejecting’, ‘tendering’, and ‘rendering’ are clearly moves within an exchange structure — that is, options in the interpersonal semantics of speech function. These are part of language, not context. By treating these semantic moves as components of tenor — rather than as interpersonal meanings that realise it — the authors conflate language with the social context it enacts. This signals a fundamental misunderstanding of the stratification hierarchy in SFL, and an inability to distinguish the semantic resources of language from the cultural context they realise.