Martin (1992: 531):
The problem with adding too many field distinctions to the contact network has to do with motivating them in terms which have not already been defined for field — so the question of realisation is critical.
Blogger Comments:
[1] The problem with adding any field distinctions to the contact network is that contact is a system of tenor, the interpersonal dimension of context, whereas field is the ideational dimension of context. The confusion is thus in terms of metafunction. It is the combination of field, tenor and mode features — Hasan's contextual configuration — that specifies a context.
[2] This is a non-sequitur. The claim is:
the question of realisation is critical because undefined terms have been used to include field features in a tenor network.
1 [cause]
|
x 2 [effect]
|
|||||
The problem with adding too many field distinctions to the contact
network
|
has to do
|
with motivating them in terms which have not already been defined for
field
|
so
|
the question of realisation
|
is
|
critical
|
Carrier
|
Process
|
Attribute: matter
|
Carrier
|
Process
|
Attribute
|
|
Realisation is the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction; e.g. between strata, between system and structure. The 'question of realisation' isn't critical as a result of undefined terms being used to include field features in a tenor network.
