Rebranding Types Of Response (Speech Function) As Types Of Rendering (Tenor)

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 34):

So far, we have considered renderings that react positively to what is being tendered. We will say that these render support. But as Kristy shows in her conversation with her mother, we can also render rejections of something that has been put forward. In (5), for example, Kristy rejects her mother’s proposal that she get dressed.

And when Ruth does something to annoy Kristy, she also forcefully rejects this:

… This gives us a distinction for types of rendering – opposing support to reject. This system allows us to make clear our thoughts and feelings about what people are saying, and thus plays a major role in terms of how we affiliate and disaffiliate with one another.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is language (exchange), not context (tenor). The 'tender' by the mother is the authors' rebranding of an initiating offer, and the 'render' by Kristy is their rebranding of a discretionary response, a rejection.

[2] To be clear, the 'tender' by Ruth is not even language, let alone tenor. The 'render' by Kristy is therefore not a responding move, but an initiating move, a command.

[3] To be clear, the authors' tenor distinction between support and reject is their rebranding of the interpersonal semantic distinction between expected and discretionary responses in the system of speech function. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 137):

[4] To be clear, to be concerned with 'thoughts and feelings about what people are saying', rather than 'what people are saying', is to take a cognitive approach to the exchange structure of interpersonal semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION (misunderstood as tenor). The cognitive approach to meaning belongs to a different tradition whose assumptions are inconsistent with the assumptions of the tradition to which SFL Theory belongs. See Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 415-8).