Summary of Chapter 4

1. Conflation of tenor and language

Throughout Chapter 4, the authors repeatedly frame ORIENTING resources as enacting social relations, implying that linguistic choices themselves are social positioning. For instance, they describe ORIENTING as helping to “enact our social relations by acknowledging the nature of the feelings and the range of people involved” (4.5). This conflates tenor—the social configuration of participants and roles—with the linguistic system used to realise it. In Hallidayan SFL, tenor is context, not language; language realises tenor. By presenting ORIENTING as a system that enacts social positions, the chapter risks reifying social relations as properties of linguistic form rather than seeing language as a semiotic tool that represents or negotiates them.

2. Rebranding SFL resources with LCT terminology

The chapter imports Legitimation Code Theory concepts (axiological constellations, bonding icons, axicons) and maps them onto SFL interpersonal resources without fully clarifying the mapping. ORIENTING resources—sourcing, convoking, opposing, likening, encapsulating—are presented as novel linguistic mechanisms, yet they largely repackage well-known SFL constructs such as:

• Sourcing → attribution heteroglossia

• Convoking → vocatives and engagement with audience

• Opposing / likening → internal connexion / appraisal oppositions

• Encapsulating → periodicity, thematic progression, or evaluative summation

The innovation here is more rhetorical than analytic: SFL constructs are rebranded using LCT’s sociological vocabulary. The chapter gives the impression of novelty while largely translating familiar SFL phenomena into LCT-inflected terms.

3. Empirical grounding and generalisation

The chapter relies on a limited set of texts (primary school discussions, analytical and hortatory expositions, historical demands texts) to illustrate ORIENTING. While illustrative, these examples do not substantiate the broader claims that ORIENTING resources are “fundamental” to all interpersonal genres. In particular:

• Micro-level dialogue examples (Kristy and her mother) are used to make claims about community-scale axiological constellations, which is a substantial leap without additional evidence.

• Genre examples, while clear, are formulaic and often simplified, limiting insight into how ORIENTING functions in complex, multimodal, or contested texts.

4. Ideational vs interpersonal meaning

The authors repeatedly emphasise that ORIENTING is concerned with interpersonal, not ideational, meaning. Yet many examples (butterflies, advertisements, water use) conflate the two: ideational content drives the evaluative positioning, and evaluative meanings are inseparable from ideational framing. The chapter underplays this interplay, which may mislead readers into assuming a clean analytical separation that rarely exists in practice.

5. Conceptual clarity and methodological implications

The conceptual layering—SFL → ORIENTING → LCT axiological constellations → iconisation / bonding icons—creates opacity. It is often unclear whether claims about social positioning are linguistic or sociological.

Terms such as bonding, iconisation, axicons, and axiological constellations are presented as essential to understanding interpersonal organisation, but they may obscure the linguistic principles they purport to illuminate.

6. Summary

While the chapter provides a systematic framework (ORIENTING) for analysing relational organisation of meaning, its strengths are overshadowed by:

• Conceptual confusion between tenor and language.

• Rebranding of established SFL resources with sociological terminology from LCT.

• Overgeneralised claims about fundamental functions of ORIENTING across genres.

• Limited empirical support for claims about macro-scale constellations of values.

• Underdeveloped discussion of the interplay between ideational and interpersonal meanings.

In effect, the chapter reads less as a genuine advance in SFL analysis and more as an attempt to retrofit SFL concepts into a LCT-inspired vocabulary. While the examples are pedagogically useful, critical readers must remain vigilant about the conceptual slippage and analytic overreach.

---

Addendum: The deeper issue

The problem is not simply technical missteps in mapping SFL categories to new terms. At a deeper level, the chapter is engaged in a systematic rebranding project. By importing LCT’s notion of axiological constellations and redescribing familiar appraisal phenomena in its terms, the authors subtly shift the ground of analysis:

• Context and semantics blur — what Halliday treated as distinct strata (tenor vs interpersonal meaning) are collapsed into a single plane.

• SFL becomes subordinate — appraisal resources are recast as illustrations of sociological constructs rather than developed on their own terms.

• Terminological inflation obscures clarity — “axiological constellation” is treated as interchangeable with “network of attitudes,” but axiology traditionally refers to the bases or grounds of evaluation, not to evaluative stances themselves.

The result is not theoretical synthesis but rhetorical displacement. SFL’s achievements in modelling evaluative meaning are effectively renarrated under borrowed sociological terminology. For readers and practitioners, the risk is clear: what appears to be innovation may in fact be conceptual repackaging, one that unsettles foundational distinctions while offering little genuine analytic gain.