Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Discourse Semantics And Contextual Theory

Martin (1992: 587):

So — texts are coherent, cultures are not.  Where does this leave linguistics which is articulated as a form of social action?

Clearly one important job, which has already begun […] lies in deconstructing the naturalisation process.  Systemic functional linguistics has always adressed [sic] this concern, and English Text's development of discourse semantics and contextual theory was undertaken with this goal explicitly in mind.  What seems crucial here is a model which displays the way in which language inflects and is inflected by contextual systems; one model of this kind has been provided.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated by the reasoned arguments in the 550+ analyses on this website, English Text's development of discourse semantics and contextual theory proceeds from multiple misunderstandings of SFL theory — misunderstandings so fundamental and pervasive that they undermine the validity of the work as theory.  In an intelligent, informed academic community that values reason and intellectual integrity, this would be a serious problem.

[2] The relation between language and context is precisely defined in SFL theory as realisation.  This is the relation of intensive identity between two levels of symbolic abstraction.

[3] The contextual model that has been provided confuses context (the culture that is realised by language) with sub-potentials of language itself (registers/genres).  The confusion is along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification and instantiation.

Misconstruing Bernstein's Coding Orientation As Ideology

Martin (1992: 581):

Perhaps the most that can be said at this stage is that from a synoptic perspective, ideology is a system of coding orientations which makes meaning selectively available depending on subjects' class, gender, ethnicity and generation.  Interpreted in these terms, all texts manifest, construe, renovate and symbolically realise ideology, just as they do language, register and genre.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confusion of ideology with coding orientation fixes ideology to the social co-ordinates of language users.  It should be obvious that speakers with similar social co-ordinates can project very different ideologies, and that speakers with very different social co-ordinates can project very similar ideologies.

[2] This misunderstands Martin's own model of stratification.  Taking (meta)metaredundancy into account, the claim — in Martin's terms only — should be:

• language (not text) realises the realisation of ideology in the realisation of genre in register.

[3] In SFL theory, the relation between texts and language, register and genre is neither manifestation, nor construal, nor renovation, nor symbolic realisation.  The relevant theoretical dimension, instead, is the vector of instantiation:

• text is a point of variation at the instance pole of instantiation, 
• register and genre are complementary perspectives on a midway point of variation on the cline of instantiation, and 
• language is the entire cline, since each point on the cline is a perspective on language.

Misrepresenting Martin (1992) On Register & Genre

Martin (1992: 575):

The register and genre theory reviewed and developed above represents systemic theory's attempts to model heteroglossia and dialogism; it does this by formulating register and genre as social semiotic systems realised through text, thereby providing an account not simply of how one text relates to another (cohesion across products) but in addition of how one text relates to all the texts that might have been (product in relation to system). …

The interpretation does however need to be qualified in two important respects — namely heterogeneity and semogensis [sic] (i.e. semiotic change). 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is doubly misleading.  Firstly, 'the register and genre theory reviewed and developed above' does not represent systemic theory's attempts.  On the contrary, it is inconsistent with SFL theory, and represents Martin's attempts only.  Secondly, 'the register and genre theory reviewed and developed above' does not model heteroglossia and dialogism.  On the contrary, what is claimed bears little or no relation to heteroglossia and dialogism; see further below.

[2] This is inconsistent, both with Martin's model and with SFL theory.

In terms of Martin's stratification model, register and genre systems are realised by the systems of language, not by text.  In this, Martin confuses the system and instance poles of the cline of instantiation.

In terms of SFL theory, it involves two confusions.  Firstly, the notion of register and genre systems confuses a midway point of variation on the cline of instantiation (register/genre/text type) with the system pole of the cline.  Secondly, it misconstrues the relation between system and text as realisation instead of instantiation.  (This in addition to the inconsistencies entailed by modelling varieties of language as context rather than language.)

[3] This is misleading in terms of both register and genre.  In terms of register, any chance of providing an account how one text relates to another is undermined by Martin's numerous misinterpretations of field, tenor and mode systems, as demonstrated in many previous posts.  In terms of genre, Martin merely provides two simple taxonomies of factual and story genres (text types).  Martin nowhere presents any account of how his formulation of register and genre relates one individual text to another.

[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, cohesion is not a relation between 'products' (texts).

[5] This is the opposite of what is true.  This is precisely what Martin's model does not do.  In SFL theory, the relation of texts to text potential — of instances to system — is modelled as the cline of instantiation.  Martin's model is inconsistent with the cline of instantiation, due to the fact that it misconstrues the midway point on the cline (register/genre), not as language, but as systems of context, and as such, as higher levels of symbolic abstraction than language.  This follows from not understanding either stratification or instantiation, as demonstrated many times in previous posts.

[6] To be clear, Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 18) identify three types of semogenic processes:

• logogenesis, the instantiation of the system in the text;
• ontogenesis, the development of the system in the individual; and
• phylogenesis, the evolution of the system in the species.

Misrepresenting Martin (1992)

Martin (1992: 574):

The first point that needs to be made is that the interpretation of language and context here is indeed multi-structural and polysystemic.  System/structure theory has been re-involved in the description on a number of different levels — rank, stratum and plane — most of which involve metafunctional diversity and so can be analysed simultaneously as particle, wave and prosody; in addition, synoptic and dynamic perspectives on text as system and text as process have been introduced.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, context is interpreted here as types of language, rather than as context, with the result that, being context, these types of language are not considered language.

[2] This is misleading, in that it overstates what has actually been done.  Almost none of the systems that Martin has provided specifies structural realisations.  This is partially disguised by the fact that some networks do include realisation statements; however, these merely provide textual instances of the feature.

• Of Martin's 49 discourse semantic system networks, across four metafunctions, only 4 specify structural realisations, and all are confined to the interpersonal metafunction.
• Of Martin's 11 register system networks, not one specifies any structural realisations; that is, no register structures are specified by register systems.
• Martin provides 0 genre systems — only taxonomies of types (factual and story genres); that is, no genre structures are specified by genre systems.

[3] This is misleading, in that it overstates what has actually been done.  Martin has not provided a rank scale for his planes of register and genre, and in the case of the stratum of discourse semantics, only one of the four metafunctional systems, the interpersonal, includes a rank scale: exchange and move.  The ranks discussed in the experiential dimension of discourse semantics — the clause and group — are ranks of a different stratum: lexicogrammar. 

[4] The level that does not involve metafunctional diversity is genre.  Metafunction is thus another dimension in which the model is inconsistent with the architecture of SFL theory, which follows from the misinterpretation of genre as context.

[5] To be clear, these are the favoured modes of structural realisation only, varying according to metafunction.  Significantly, these were introduced in the section on genre, the plane without metafunctional diversity. 

[6] This confuses text with language.  Text is only the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.  Language is the entire cline, from systemic potential to actual instance, with every point on the cline providing a different perspective.

'Text as system', therefore, is the instantial system; i.e. the system of an actual text, not the system of the language as a whole.  It is the instance viewed from the system pole.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 384): 

If we look at logogenesis from the point of view of the system (rather than from the point of view of each instance), we can see that logogenesis builds up a version of the system that is particular to the text being generated: the speaker/writer uses this changing system as a resource in creating the text; and the listener/reader has to reconstruct something like that system in the process of interpreting the text — with the changing system as a resource for the process of interpretation. We call this an instantial system.

'Text as process', on the other hand, is the process of instantiation that occurs at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation during logogenesis.  As previously explained, Martin misconstrues 'process' as structure, the syntagmatic axis, "viewed dynamically".  That is, he confuses the instantiation of the system as instance with the axial realisation of the system as structure.

Misunderstanding Realisation

Martin (1992: 574):

In general terms Firth privileged text over system (see Halliday's comments in Thibault 1987: 603) and it was left to Halliday to develop system/process theory in a way that placed potential and actual on an equal footing, related through the dialectic of realisation. …

Setting aside for a moment the problems of formalising realisation as a dialectic, English Text has for the most part followed Halliday's lead in refusing to privilege either system or process.  The attention paid to system however does run the risk of being read as involving an over-deterministic interpretation of language, register and genre as homogeneous systems.  This (mis)reading needs to be seriously addressed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands the relation between potential and actual, which is instantiation, not realisation.

[2] This misunderstands the notion of realisation.  Realisation is an intensive identifying relational process that relates different levels of symbolic abstraction.  It is the relation, for example, between strata, on the one hand, and between axes, on the other.

It also misunderstands the notion of dialectic, which refers to the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions. Its synonyms include reasoning, argumentation, contention, logic; discussion, debate, dialogue, logical argument.

[3] The notion of "formalising realisation as a dialectic" is therefore nonsensical, at best.

formalising (‘making formal’)		realisation	as a dialectic
Process: relational	Attribute	Carrier	Rôle: guise

[4] There is a concealed confusion here, in as much as Martin (1992) uses the term 'process' to mean structure, viewed dynamically, rather than the process of instantiation.  In terms of system vs structure, SFL theory, as the name implies, does give priority to system.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49):

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is one of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features.

[5] To be clear, SFL theory maps out the dimensions of language as a resource of choices for making meaning.

[6] Here diatypic varieties of language, register and genre, are again presented as not being language.

Strategically Misrepresenting Hasan

Martin (1992: 572):

Mode also impinges on Hasan's model of context and text structure, since for her only texts where the role of language is ancillary and whose environment is pragmatic can be derived from contextual configurations (in her discussion she is opposing text types such as service encounters to the nursery tale; Hasan 1984: 76).  Since for constitutive modes, context cannot predict text structure, Hasan suggests that for these texts what matters most is "the array of existing conventions" (1984: 78).  Hasan's model then is one which derives text structures in two fundamentally different ways, depending on mode (see Harris 1987: 36-7 for a related critique).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The reason mode "impinges" on Hasan's model of context and text structure is because Hasan understands that

• text structure is semantics, 
• semantic structure realises semantic systems, and
• semantics realises context (field, tenor and mode).

[2] This seriously misrepresents Hasan (1984: 78), who only raised this in order to point out that, by itself, it explains nothing:

The single most salient fact that appears most relevant is the overall adherence to an array of existing conventions.  But to say that the structure of a nursery tale is controlled by artistic conventions is to explain nothing, unless alongside this assertion we can also provide a convincing account of how artistic conventions themselves originate and how any change is successfully introduced into a body of pre-existing conventions.

In contrast, Hasan goes on to derive the structural potential of this text type from the semantics of the texts themselves.

[3] This is falsely presented as if it is a defect in the Hasan's theory, rather than a distinction that is motivated by the data.  In the passage immediately preceding the quote above, Hasan (1984: 78) explains :

I would suggest that the nature of the factors which motivate the elements of structure in such genres is relatively opaque.  This is because the environments in which such texts are either created or received bears only a tangential relationship to their inner unity.  It follows then that the elements of the structure of the nursery tale can neither be seen as fully governed by the author-audience interaction

To contextualise this and the previous misrepresentation, Hasan's (1984) paper was not easily accessible at the time that Martin was writing, being only published in a Nottingham Linguistic Circular.  However, the paper was eventually published in the 1996 collection Ways Of Saying: Ways Of Meaning.

[4] No indication is given as to how the critique in the following obscure paper relates to Martin's "critique" of Hasan.

Harris, S. 1987. "Court Discussion as Genre: some problems and issues".  Department of English, University of Nottingham.  Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 2. 35-74.

∞

This misrepresentation of Hasan's work is strategic because its function is to demonstrate that Martin's model is less complex, and thus preferable.  See the next post for an assessment of the truth of this proposition.

Misconstruing First & Second Orders Of Field

Martin (1992: 572):

The distinction between first and second order field is presented as follows:

In a discussion about a game of football, the social action is the discussion and the verbal interaction among the participants is the whole of this interaction.  Here the game constitutes a second order of 'field', one that is brought into being by that of the first order, the discussion … (1978: 144)

English Text would model a context of this kind by treating it as a discussion at the level of genre, and as simultaneously involving two fields at the level of register — one field realised through language in action mode (the discussion), and the other realised reflectively (the subject matter).  Keeping in mind that as far as text structure is concerned genre and field give convergent accounts as texts approach ancillary mode, English Text's approach to this context would amount in practice to treating the genre as discussion and the field as the game discussed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The inconsistencies here are too complex to analyse without the glossary below:

Martin’s Usage	What Martin Thinks It Means	What Halliday Means By It
context	register and genre	the semiotic system that has language as its expression plane
genre	context, not language; more abstract than register	language, not context; text type, i.e. register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation
register	context, not language; less abstract than genre	language, not context; text type viewed from the system pole of the cline of instantiation
field	ideational dimension of register	ideational dimension of context, not register

So Martin's approach is to model this situation type

• as a discussion at his higher level of context (genre), and 
• as two fields at his lower level of context (register),
• with first order field realised through ancillary mode, and
• second order field realised through constitutive mode.

That is, new inconsistencies are introduced at this point:

• a situation type has two modes simultaneously (two points on the same cline);
• systems at the same level of abstraction (field and mode) are related by realisation — the relation between different levels of abstraction;
• ideational features (field) are realised by textual features (mode);
• different orders of experience (first and second order field) are both realised by the same order (mode, which is second order).

[2] Note that mode of this situation type is constitutive, not ancillary.  Halliday explicitly specifies that 'the verbal interaction among the participants is the whole of this interaction'.

[3] Martin's approach is thus to treat the lower (first) order field as the higher level of semiotic abstraction — genre stratum — and higher (second) order field as the lower level of semiotic abstraction — register stratum — based on an incorrect interpretation of mode (see [2]).  The inconsistencies therefore are in terms of ordering (lower vs higher), relation (realisation vs projection) and mode (ancillary vs constitutive).

Consequently, on this third tendered piece of evidence, Martin's claim that his model of register and genre avoids additional complications in Halliday's model is the exact opposite of what is true.

Misconstruing Language Sub-Potentials As Constituting Context Potential

Martin (1992: 570):

For ideological reasons, mapping out the system of genres that constitute our context of culture is a pressing task — and there is no reason in principle to expect it to be a more complex one than mapping lexicogrammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] From the perspective of SFL theory, the term 'system of genres' confuses potential (system) with sub-potentials (genres).  The confusion is along the cline of instantiation.

[2] In SFL theory, genres do not constitute the context of culture.  Genres, as language, realise context; genres as text types, realise situation types.  That is genres are sub-potentials of language that realise sub-potentials of the culture as a semiotic system.  The relation between genre (language sub-potentials) and context of culture (context potential) is therefore along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously:

• stratification (context vs language), and
• instantiation (potential vs sub-potential).

	potential	sub-potential / instance type	instance
context	context of culture
language		genre

Distinguishing Interpersonal Meaning From Evaluation

Martin (1992: 556):

Rather problematically for this definition of Resolution [Labov and Waletzky (1967: 39)], the realisation of Evaluation turns out to be potentially non-discrete.  There may be more than one Evaluation in a narrative … .  The non-discrete realisation of Evaluation makes locating the major focus of the Evaluation difficult, which in turn calls into question the use of a localised Evaluation to define the Resolution.  The difficulty here lies in Labov's equation of interpersonal meaning (language) with Evaluation (genre) and his failure to distinguish clearly between particulate and prosodic perspectives on generic structure.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is a contradiction in terms.  Martin claims Evaluation is potentially non-discrete — i.e. not separate — but equates this with there being more than one.  By definition, for there to be more than one, each must be a discrete realisation.

[2] The claim here is that the connected realisation of Evaluation entails that there is more than one of them, and that this makes it difficult to choose which of the "connected realisation" can be used to define the Resolution stage of a narrative.  See [1].

[3] The "difficulty" here derives:

• firstly, from Martin's misunderstanding of the term 'non-discrete',
• secondly, from his opposition of interpersonal meaning and Evaluation, and
• thirdly, and more seriously, from his claim that types of language (genres) and the linguistic evaluations made in such text types are not language.

[4] Perhaps this failure can be forgiven, on the grounds that Labov was not a student of Halliday and worked in a discrete linguistic tradition.

Blurring The Distinction Between Realisation, Logogenesis And Instantiation

Martin (1992: 536-7):

Field is the contextual projection of experiential meaning and so alongside IDEATION puts at risk the clause rank systems TRANSITIVITY, CIRCUMSTANTIATION and AGENCY, as well as systems generating Numerative, Epithet, Classifier, Thing and Qualifier in nominal group structure and various other group/phrase systems, all of which need to be interpreted as embracing lexis as most delicate grammar; in addition, research into collocation patterns provides an important perspective on field's realisation (see Benson & Greaves 1981, 1992, forthcoming).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  Field is not the contextual projection of experiential meaning.  Field is the ideational dimension of context.  That is, it is application of the theoretical notion of the ideational metafunction to the culture as a semiotic system.

[2] As previously demonstrated, Martin's system of ideation, purported to be a model of experiential meaning on the discourse semantic stratum, is actually a confusion of lexical cohesion (textual metafunction at the level of grammar), lexis as most delicate grammar (lexicogrammatical delicacy), and logical relations between figure elements.

Martin here omits systems of the logical metfunction.  This would have required the inclusion of the discourse semantic system of conjunction, which, as previously demonstrated, is a confusion of clause complex relations (logical metafunction) and cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction), both of which are grammatical systems.

[3] Unhappily, the risk that semiotic systems face is never identified.

[4] To be clear, the clause rank system of transitivity includes the systems of agency and circumstantiation.  Circumstantiation refers to 'circumstantial transitivity' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 758).

[5] 'Systems generating structure' blurs the distinction between axial realisation, logogenesis and instantiation.  The relation between paradigmatic system and syntagmatic structure is realisation.  Structure realises system.  That is, they are in a relation of symbolic identity, with system as Value and structure as Token.

On the other hand, 'generating', in this sense, is modelled in SFL theory as logogenesis, the unfolding of text at the instance pole of cline of instantiation, as features are selected and realisation statements activated (the process of instantiation).

[6] This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the notion of lexis as most delicate grammar — as also demonstrated by its inclusion in Martin's model of experiential discourse semantics.  Lexis as most delicate grammar means that if grammatical networks were to be elaborated to sufficient delicacy, bundles of the most delicate features would specify individual lexical items — just as bundles of articulatory features specify individual phonemes.

[7] To be clear, collocation is a resource of lexical cohesion, and so represents a resource of the textual, not ideational metafunction.

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Grammatical Metaphor

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
interaction patterns	experiential metaphor	experiential congruence

Blogger Comments:

The claim here is that:

• experiential metaphor construes the tenor feature 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas 
• experiential congruence construes the tenor feature 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors)

This claim can be falsified by concrete examples:

• glass crack growth rate is associated with stress magnitude is claimed to construe a lot of previous contact between interlocutors, whereas
• glass cracks more quickly the harder you press on it is claimed to construe less previous contact between interlocutors.

Clearly, the relevant contextual dimension here is field, not tenor.  Metaphorical realisations are more likely to construe specialised fields, whereas more congruent realisations are more likely to construe everyday fields.

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & Discourse Semantics

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
discourse semantics	dialogue	monologue
	homophoric	endophoric
	implicit conjunction	explicit conjunction

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of 'dialogue' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of 'monologue' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Leaving aside the difficulty this poses to uninvolved interlocutors trying to converse, the dialogue vs monologue distinction is one of context, not discourse semantics. The confusion is thus along two theoretical dimensions simultaneously: stratification (context vs semantics) and metafunction (interpersonal [tenor] vs textual [mode]).

[2] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of 'homophoric' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of 'endophoric' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

To be clear:

• homophoric reference is the type of exophoric (situational) reference that doesn't depend on the specific situation (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 71), whereas
• endophoric reference is text-internal reference (op. cit.: 33), and includes the types: demonstrative, personal and comparative reference.

(In SFL theory, the cohesive resource of reference is a system of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar, not discourse semantics.)

The claim can be falsified by concrete examples:

• homophoric reference such as the sun is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• endophoric reference such as the cat I mentioned earlier is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[3] The claim here is that:

• the discourse semantic feature of 'implicit' conjunction construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the discourse semantic feature of 'explicit' conjunction construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

The claim can be falsified by concrete examples:

• He was a chain smoker — he died of lung cancer is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• He was a chain smoker — consequently he died of lung cancer is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & "Phonology"

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
phonology	Pre-tonic delicacy	basic tone
	marked tonality	unmarked tonality
	marked tonicity	unmarked tonicity
	varied rhythm	constant rhythm
	fluent	hesitant
	reduction processes	full syllables
	native accent	standard accent
	range of accents	single accent
	acronym	full form

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of "native accent" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of "standard accent" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Leaving aside both the fact that this is sociolectal and dialectal variation, not phonology, and the dubious categorisation of "accents" as 'standard' vs 'non-standard', the claim can be falsified by considering a concrete example:

• the use of a native accent by two students meeting for the first time is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the use of a "standard" accent by a married couple is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[2] The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of "range of accents" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of "single accent" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Leaving aside the fact that this is sociolectal and dialectal variation, not phonology, the claim can be falsified by considering a concrete example:

• the use of a range of accents by students from different nations meeting for the first time in a foreign country is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the use of a single accent by a married couple is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[3] The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of "acronym" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of "full form" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

This claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• the use of 'U.N.' by two delegates meeting for the first time is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the use of 'United Nations' by a married couple is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).