From Contrastive Signals to Axiological Binaries: How Tenor and Semantics are Blurred in the Name of Novelty

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 102):

Persuasive texts involve orienting different positions in relation to each other. From the perspective of Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), this typically involves building or drawing upon axiological constellations that arrange meanings in terms of emotional, aesthetic or ethical stances… In terms of tenor, one of the main resources for building such constellations is what we will call opposing. Opposing resources involve establishing an opposition, and in doing so explicitly indicating that there are competing ideas (Doran, 2020b). The primary school discussion makes use of this resource to arrange its two opposing Arguments. It draws on internal connexion (Halliday and Hasan 1976, Martin 1992) to do so – more specifically the signal of difference on the other hand.

ChatGPT Comments:

Opposing is coherent with SFL’s discourse semantics (ENGAGEMENT and INTERNAL CONNEXION). However:

1. Redundant terminology: “Opposing” largely duplicates established resources such as contrastive signals and adversative connectors. Framing it as a new system may obscure the existing theoretical precision.

2. Binary focus caution: The link to LCT’s axiological constellations assumes opposition is primarily binary. SFL analyses show that textual positioning often involves multiple, nested contrasts rather than strict dichotomies. A more nuanced account of multiplicity would strengthen the argument.

3. SFL stratification oversight: While the authors reference tenor, the framing risks conflating context (tenor) and semantics (discourse-semantic contrasts), repeating a pattern seen in previous chapters.