Misconstruing "Status-Like Relationships Between Participants"

Martin (1992: 526-7):

Status-like relationships between participants can be interpreted from a number of perspectives, including mode, field, genre and ideology as well as tenor.  The term prominence will be used here to refer to the way in which various media construct public figures (mode), authority for the ways in which institutions position people through job classification and expertise (field), control for the way in which participants direct other participants to do things (genre) and power as the overarching term for the way in which ethnicity, gender, generation and class give participants differential access to status, prominence, authority and control.  This set of terminology for situating social difference in the model of context being developed here is summarised below:

status	- tenor (social hierarchy)
prominence	- mode (publicity)
authority	- field (expertise and classification)
control	- genre (manipulation)
power	- ideology (access)

Blogger Comments:

[1] The system of tenor is not one of many "perspectives" on "status-like relationships between participants".  It specifically models the relative status of interacting language users.  This is distinct from:

• mode (the part played by language)
• field ('what's going on' and subject matter)
• genre (text type), and
• ideology (a system of ideas and ideals)

[2] This is semantically incoherent: the "way in which various media construct public figures" is not "prominence".  Further, the assignment of prominence to public figures by the media is not mode.

[3] This is semantically incoherent: the "ways in which institutions position people through job classification and expertise" is not "authority".  Further, the assignment of authority to people by institutions is not field.

[4] This is semantically incoherent: the "way in which participants direct other participants to do things" is not "control".  Control is the power to influence or direct people's behaviour or the course of events.  Further, the power to direct people's behaviour is not genre.

[5] This is semantically incoherent: the "way in which ethnicity, gender, generation and class give participants differential access to status, prominence, authority and control" is not "power".  Power is the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way, or the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events (i.e. 'control'; see [4]).  Further, the capacity to act in a particular way is not ideology.