Applying a Relational Ontology to SFL: 3 Context as Semiotic Potential: A Canonical Reconstruction

The goal of this post is to recover context in Halliday’s precise terms and to situate it ontologically within the relational framework.

We remove all environmental, sociological, or representational overlays, keeping context firmly as semiotic potential.

---

1. Halliday’s Canonical Definition

Halliday writes:

• Context = the semiotic potential of culture

• Situation = an instance of that contextual potential

Key clarifications:

• Context is not the physical environment.

• Context is not a sociological or psychological construct.

Instead:

Context is a semiotic system.

Its potential is realised only when instantiated as situations.

---

2. The Ontological Recut

Using the relational ontology, we can now make the following precise distinctions:

1. System = context as structured potential

   • Context is a theory of possible situations, not a container of events.

2. Instance = situation as perspectival actualisation

   • A situation is not “drawn from context”; it is construed as an instance of contextual potential.

3. Construal is constitutive

   • There is no unconstrued situation. Every situation is already interpreted relative to its potential.

4. Phenomenon vs Metaphenomenon

   • Phenomenon = first-order construed situation

   • Metaphenomenon = second-order analysis of situation

   • Context = system = theory of possible phenomena

This gives context a rigorous metaphysical footing: it is semiotic potential, construed perspectivally, instantiated in situations.

---

3. Rejecting Non-Canonical Interpretations

Misinterpretations abound:

• Context as environment

  • Confuses physical/social substrate with semiotic potential.

• Context as property of events

  • Treats situations as prior; makes context derivative.

• Context as sociological domain

  • Collapses semiotic and value categories.

Canonical SFL + relational ontology rejects all of these.

• Context is independent of any particular instantiation.

• It exists as potential prior only in the sense of perspectival theory, not temporal ordering.

---

4. The Role of Field, Tenor, and Mode

At this stage, the variables of context can be formally stated:

• Field = theoretical construal of what is happening

• Tenor = theoretical construal of participants and their relations

• Mode = theoretical construal of the semiotic channel and its organisation

Crucial points:

• F/T/M are systems of context, not properties of situations.

• Each expresses a dimension of potential.

• Situations instantiate F/T/M perspectivally.

This recovers the canonical Hallidayan sense without introducing representational or feature-based drift.

---

5. The Perspectival Cut

Situations are instantiated through construal:

• Context → Situation

• Potential → Instance

The relational ontology emphasises that:

• This is not a temporal process.

• This is not a derivation or computation.

• This is a perspectival relation: the situation is read as an instance of potential.

This restores instantiation and context in one clean move.

---

6. What This Post Secures

With context recut ontologically, we have:

1. Canonical Hallidayan definition of context preserved.

2. Situations understood as perspectival instantiations.

3. Field, Tenor, Mode reclaimed as systems of potential, not event properties.

4. Category errors (environmental, sociological) eliminated.

5. Preparatory groundwork laid for the next post: recutting F/T/M as contextual systems as theories of potential.

---

Next Post

Post 4 will fully integrate Field, Tenor, and Mode into the relational-ontological frame:

• F/T/M will be formalised as systems of context, not features of events.

• Situations will be shown as instances of these systems.

• The full perspectival relation between contextual potential and situation will be demonstrated.