Martin (1992: 516-7):
Experientially mode mediates the degree to which language is part of or constitutive of what is going on. In text [4:2] for example, most of the meanings are made verbally (excepting the exophoric reference discussed above). At the dog show itself however, language would have a much smaller rôle to play in the showing area, where most of the meaning is realised through action, not words. … Showing a dog and describing how a dog is shown are in other words very different modes.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This confuses metafunctions. The system of mode, and thus all its feature oppositions, is a resource of the textual metafunction.
[2] In SFL theory, mode does not "mediate". Oppositions such as constitutive vs ancillary are features of mode. Mode enables both field and tenor.
[3] This dimension of mode — the opposition of constitutive vs ancillary — corresponds to Hasan's (1985/9: 58) system of LANGUAGE RÔLE:
First, there is the question of the LANGUAGE RÔLE — whether it is constitutive or ancillary. These categories should not be seen as sharply distinct but rather as two end-points of a continuum.
[4] The exophoric references, of course, were also made verbally. Exophoric reference is a linguistic resource. In this case, the exophoric references were made to manual gestures on a table surface.
[5] This confuses material order phenomena: what people do, with semiotic order (meta)phenomena: what people say. This confusion is further confounded by associating the material doing with Hasan's language rôle (textual semiosis).
