Negotiating Non-Finite Clauses As Tenor And Misunderstanding Engagement

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 44):

In (21), when her mother says I won’t be home later either she rejects a possible line of argument that Kristy could take that she will be home late (and tenders this as a proposition that could be argued).

And in (22) don’t get cranky, she pre-emptively rejects any acceptance of Kristy getting cranky.

As the analysis shows, in each of these cases the rejection is part of a full clause, which also tenders a (negative) proposition. The justification for this is that each of these positions can themselves be subsequently negotiated. As we will see, the use of engagement typically allows for both the rendering of a proposition while at the same time a tendering of another proposition. In the cases above, they reject an implied positive proposition, and tender the negative proposition.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This misconstrues interpersonal semantics (SPEECH FUNCTION) as interpersonal context (tenor), and rebrands initiating moves as 'tender' and responding moves as 'render' ('reject'). In SFL, the mother's move I won't be home late either is just a statement that initiates an exchange (though the word either suggests it could also be a response to a previous move).

However, the authors also interpret the mother's statement as a contradicting response (rejection) to a future move that her daughter Kristy didn't actually make. This is analogous to interpreting the statement a triangle doesn't have four sides as a response to the unspoken move a triangle does have four sides.

[2] Again, this misconstrues interpersonal semantics (SPEECH FUNCTION) as interpersonal context (tenor), and rebrands initiating moves as 'tender' and responding moves as 'render' ('reject'). In SFL, the mother's move Don't get cranky is a command that initiates an exchange.

However, the authors also interpret the mother's command as a response (rejection) to a future move that her daughter Kristy didn't actually make.

[3] To be clear, the analysis shows that the rejections are being home late and Kristy getting cranky. The patently false claim is that the non-finite clause being home late is part of the finite declarative clause I won't be home late either, and the non-finite clause Kristy getting cranky is part of the finite imperative clause Don't get cranky.

[4] To be clear, this justification is invalid on two counts:

• clauses cannot be negotiated if they are non-finite;
• clauses cannot be negotiated if they are not spoken.

[5] This conflates the system of engagement with the structure of speech function. Engagement does not involve the “rendering” or “tendering” of propositions. Engagement models the positioning of propositions within dialogic space, not their role in an exchange structure. The claim reflects a category error that misrepresents engagement as a system of interpersonal action rather than one of semantic alignment.

[6] To be clear, what is said to be rejected is a future response that was not made. And, trivially, (22) is a proposal, not a proposition.