Problems With The First 'Rendering' System Network

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 37):

We can pull together the discussion so far as the set of preliminary options for rendering shown in the system network in Figure 2.1. 

 

This network outlines that when speaking, we have the option of tendering positions or rendering them. If rendering, we can address what has previously been said by enacting a stance of some kind, or we can simply note it and not give away our feelings. If we address these meanings, we can either support or reject them, and we can either do this in a way that directly confers this support or rejection (what Knight (2010a) calls ‘communing’ and ‘condemning’ affiliation), or defers it through laughter. These resources allow us to negotiate meanings used to enact our social relations in a nuanced way.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, the authors present this network as a model of tenor, that is, of who is taking part in cultural terms. However, as the authors themselves acknowledge, this network outlines options when speaking, which means that it is a model of language, not tenor, since tenor is context, not language. As this entire book makes plain, the authors do not understand the distinction between context and language, nor the realisation relation between them.

Moreover, the feature 'render' is the authors' rebranding of 'respond' in the semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION, with 'support' a rebranding of 'expected' and 'reject' a rebranding of 'discretionary'. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 136):

Of the other features in the authors' network, Figure 2.1, 'note' and 'defer' refer to responses that do not realise speech functions:

• 'note' refers to a backchannelling response, realised by protolanguage (Mm);
• 'defer' refers to laughing in response.