This post formalises Field, Tenor, and Mode (F/T/M) as systems of context, fully integrated into the relational ontology.
1. Contextual Variables as Theoretical Systems
In canonical SFL:
-
Context = semiotic potential of culture
-
F/T/M = dimensions along which this potential is organised
Relational-ontologically:
-
Each of F/T/M is a system: a structured potential, a theory of possible instantiations.
-
They are not properties of situations.
-
They are not environmental descriptors.
-
They are not sociological categories.
2. Field: The System of ‘What is Happening’
-
Field concerns the ideational dimension of activity.
-
It is realised by potential meanings relating to actions, events, and processes.
-
Situations instantiate field perspectivally: a situation is read as an actualisation of this potential.
Key point: Field is not “the event itself”; it is the potential for the event to be construed semiotically.
3. Tenor: The System of Participant Relations
-
Tenor concerns participants and their interrelations.
-
It is realised by potential meanings regarding roles, relations, and social positioning.
-
Situations instantiate tenor through construal: participants are construed as tokens of the theoretical relations in the system.
Key point: Tenor is never the participants themselves; it is a system of potential relations.
4. Mode: The System of Semiotic Channel and Organisation
-
Mode concerns the channel, medium, and organisation of meaning.
-
It structures potential realisations: spoken vs written, narrative vs expository, monologue vs dialogue.
-
Situations instantiate mode perspectivally: the actual channel is a token of the potential channel system.
Key point: Mode is a theoretical system, not an observed property of the situation.
5. Perspectival Actualisation Across F/T/M
Situations instantiate F/T/M in a perspectival, non-temporal way:
-
Field potential → instance in event
-
Tenor potential → instance in participant relations
-
Mode potential → instance in semiotic channel
This preserves:
-
Canonical Hallidayan logic
-
Non-representational purity
-
Strict separation from environmental or sociological readings
The relational ontology makes explicit that:
-
F/T/M are systems of context
-
Situations are construed instances
-
There is no unconstrued situation
6. F/T/M as the Contextual Analogue of System Networks
Just as system networks in language organise semantic potential, F/T/M organise contextual potential.
-
Each variable expresses a different dimension of meaning-potential.
-
Each situational instantiation is a perspectival cut of these systems.
-
No cross-stratal conflation occurs: context → semantics → lexicogrammar remains the canonical order.
7. What This Post Secures
With F/T/M fully recut:
-
Contextual systems are restored to theory status, not event descriptors.
-
Situations instantiate these systems perspectivally.
-
Misinterpretations that treat F/T/M as event features or variables are eliminated.
-
Groundwork is laid for register: a functional variety of language realised as subpotential within semantics, not context.
Next Post
Post 5 will focus on register:
-
Show that register is a semantic-level subpotential,
-
Realises situation types, not context,
-
And is fully consistent with the relational-ontological framing established so far.
No comments:
Post a Comment