Most Pageviews by Country

Helping SFL Develop Its Potential To Help Make Our World A Better Place

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 215):

All this is to say, the way language redounds with society is rich and multifaceted. As a theory that aims to build a model of social semiosis, as SFL does (Halliday 1978), theoretical and descriptive space is needed for modelling language and society’s nuanced interconnections. In this paper we have tried to open some of this space. But as the survey above has shown, there is much to be done. Halliday (1985: x) described his vast Introduction to Functional Grammar as but a “thumbnail sketch” of English grammar; given the size of this paper and the scope of its ambition, we are scarcely even offering a thumbnail cell sketch here. We do hope that others can join us, and help SFL develop its potential – as the appliable linguistics we need to help make our world a better place.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in order to improve a theory, it is first necessary to understand the theory. As Halliday once remarked after a conference paper given by Martin: "Make sure you understand the theory."

As this review has demonstrated, the authors do not understand SFL Theory sufficiently well to "open some of its theoretical and descriptive space". In the first half of the paper, the authors misunderstand context as the language that realises it, and in the second half of the paper, they additionally misunderstand context as principles for the instantiation of language, despite instantiation not being an interstratal relation.

[2] On the plus side, if you join the authors in their misunderstandings of SFL Theory, you will at least be helping them to make our world a better place. See also

• The Culture Of 'Social Activism' In The SFL Community
• The Tactics Of The Disciplinarian Head Of The Martin Faith Fellowship

Rethinking The Individuation Of Field Tenor And Mode

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 214-5):

One component of this model we have not commented on in detail here is that of individuation (Martin 2010). This dimension focuses on how language varies within a community, from the entire reservoir of meanings in a language community, to the individual repertoire of a person. In so doing, it considers how different language resources are distributed across different segments of society (allocation) and how people use language to come together and build community (affiliation). 

Viewed from individuation, field, tenor, and mode can be considered perspectives on arenas and domains of variation, contestation, and collaboration. 

For example, from the perspective of tenor, we can consider domains of sociality, such as the specific social relationships and the variation inherent in how they are managed. … From this perspective, we could also consider the sets of values at play in particular domains (what Maton [2014] calls axiological constellations) and how they organise people into different communities (e.g. Doran 2020a, 2020b). 

From the perspective of field, we can consider domains of experience, such as the specific disciplines in school that much SFL education work has devoted itself to, including the sets of knowledge that underpin them (what Maton [2014] calls epistemological constellations). 

From the perspective of mode, we can consider domains of affordance, such as the media and channels that constrain and enable our possibilities for communication.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, if individuation is a scale of variation from the reservoir of meanings of a language community to the repertoires of meanings of individuals, then its organising principle is one of elaboration. This is a distinct dimension from the different dimensions of  allocation and affiliation, both of which are organised in terms of extension (association). See Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 145-6).

[2] To be clear, applied to context, individuation is a scale of variation from the reservoir of context potential of a language community to the repertoires of context potential of individuals.

[3] To be clear, applied to tenor, individuation is a scale of variation from the reservoir of tenor potential of a language community to the repertoires of tenor potential of individuals.

[4] To be clear, applied to field, individuation is a scale of variation from the reservoir of field potential of a language community to the repertoires of field potential of individuals.

[5] To be clear, applied to mode, individuation is a scale of variation from the reservoir of mode potential of a language community to the repertoires of mode potential of individuals.

The Authors' Misunderstanding Of Instantiation

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 214):

As our survey has indicated, our understanding of instantiation is only at an incipient stage. But it already can offer new perspectives on long-standing challenges regarding how language engages with broader society. For example, when it comes to understanding change over time, whether phylogenetic, ontogenetic, or logogenetic, it offers a view not in terms of snapshots of the sets of resources used at particular times, but in terms of the principles that drive them. For example, in terms of Halliday’s classic study of the phylogenetic development of scientific language (1988), we can interpret the growth in the use of elaborated nominal groups, interlocking definitions and eventually the development of grammatical metaphor as being driven by a need for increased mass – for greater connections between meanings than had previously been possible. 

Reviewer Comments;

[1] To be clear, as this review has demonstrated, the authors simply do not understand instantiation, the relation between potential and instance at a given level of symbolic abstraction. Their notion of 'principles of instantiation', for example, misunderstands instantiation as an interstratal relation between context and language; and see [2] below. So the new perspectives the authors offer are not consistent with SFL Theory.

[2] This misunderstands the relation of instantiation to the three timescales of semogenesis. Even if the authors' 'principles of instantiation' were theoretically valid, they would only be relevant to logogenesis. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 37):

[3] To be clear, unlike Halliday's account, this interpretation is not an explanation. It merely rebrands the increase in grammatical metaphor as an increase in mass, and reduces all the reasons for the increase as a 'need'.

Problems With Intermodal Convergence As A Principle Of Instantiation

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 213-4):

These principles – mass, presence, and association – are by no means the only ones that organise how we take up different sets of choices from the immense set of possibilities in language. At the very least, other principles include that of convergence – how much different choices in a text ‘match’ each other or ‘diverge’ from each other (intralingually, interlingually, and/or intermodally) – which has been primarily taken up so far in studies of how different semiotic resources are used together (e.g. Ngo et al. 2022b; Painter et al. 2013; Zappavigna and Logi 2024); 

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, the authors' notion of 'principles of instantiation' is their misunderstanding of the contextual parameters of field tenor and mode as the metafunctional meanings of language misunderstood as mass, association and presence. Moreover, the notion that context can provide 'principles of instantiation' for language misunderstands instantiation as an interstratal relation.

[2] To be clear, 'convergence' is not analogous to mass, association and presence as 'principles of instantiation' because convergence is a relation between distinct semiotic systems, not a relation between a semiotic system and its context. Moreover, 'convergence' is the simplistic notion that instances of distinct semiotic systems are either alike or not. For a close examination of the model of intermodal convergence in Ngo et al. 2022b, see the review posts here.

Problems With The Authors' Reconceptualisation Of Field, Tenor And Mode In Terms Of Instantiation

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 213):

Reconsidering the variation between more technical and more everyday discourse – often positioned within field – we have presented the variable of mass. Mass offers a means of conceptualising how much ‘meaning’ is presented in a particular instance (influenced by Maton’s [2014] conception of semantic density), whether that be ideational, interpersonal, and textual, and the differing language resources used to present this variation in the strength of meaning. 

Reconsidering the social relations of contact and status – what has often been positioned within tenor – we have presented association. Association presents cross-metafunctional principles for organising the reciprocity of choice or lack thereof that marks similarities or differences in status, and the contraction and proliferation that mark differing levels of social contact. 

And reconsidering variation in ‘abstraction’ or ‘concreteness’ – often positioned within mode – we have presented the principle of presence. Presence presents a cross-metafunctional understanding of context-dependence (influenced by Maton’s [2014] semantic gravity). This considers the degree to which texts iconically match what it is talking about (ideational iconicity), the degree to which texts engage with the audience as it goes (interpersonal negotiability), and the degree to which texts relate out to the situation they are in (textual implicitness).

 Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained:

• 'mass' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field;
• 'technicality' is the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field;
• 'iconisation' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field; and
• 'aggregation' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

[2] As previously explained:

• 'association' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor;
• 'participation' is the contextual parameter of field confused with the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor;
• 'accord' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor; and
• 'coordination' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[3] As previously explained:

• 'presence' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode;
• 'iconicity' is the ideational meaning (metaphor) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode;
• 'negotiability' is the interpersonal meaning (speech function) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode; and
• 'implicitness' is the textual meaning (exophoric demonstrative reference) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode.

Problems With 'Principles Of Instantiation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 213):

In terms of instantiation, this model focuses on how different choices are brought together and sequenced. More technically, it is concerned with the principles that underpin couplings. It has long been acknowledged that choices in language are not put together in a random fashion, but work together to build meaning. This is, of course, the basis of Halliday’s conception of register. The current model aims to make explicit the principles determining how these choices come together. Importantly, it arises from an acknowledgement that these principles are not tied to any particular metafunction but are cross-metafunctional.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] The reader is invited to imagine a time when it was thought that choices in language were put together in a random fashion so as not to work together to build meaning.

[2] This is not, of course, the basis of Halliday’s conception of register. To be clear, Halliday's 'register' is a point of variation on the cline of instantiation between language-as-system and language-as-text. Different sub-potentials of culture (contextual configurations of field, tenor and mode) are realised by different registers, and registers differ in the selection probabilities of semantic and grammatical features.

[3] To be clear, the first half of this paper reconceptualised the contextual parameters of context, field tenor and mode, as the ideational, interpersonal and textual language that realises each. This simply mistook one level of symbolic abstraction for another.

The second half of this paper then reconceptualised the notions of contextual field tenor and mode that they replaced as 'principles of instantiation' of language. This again confused the contextual parameters of context, field tenor and mode, as the ideational, interpersonal and textual language that realises each, but went further by modelling this confusion of context and language as principles for the instantiation of language.

[4] This continues the authors' misunderstanding of 'context-metafunction resonance' as requiring that contextual parameters only specify linguistic realisations in their counterpart metafunction, as previously explained.

The Problems With The Authors' Reconceptualisation Of Field, Tenor And Mode In Terms Of Realisation

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 212-3):

Under the model presented in this paper, field, tenor, and mode have been reconceptualised in terms of realisation as meaning making resources. Field has been presented as a resource for construing phenomena, tenor as a resource for enacting sociality, and mode as a resourcing for composing texture. 

This has been done in such a way that we can maintain context/metafunction resonance – it means that the resources of field are more closely tied to ideational meanings in language, the resources of tenor are more closely tied to interpersonal meanings, and the resources of mode are more closely tied to textual meanings than have otherwise been the case.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors' reconceptualisation of field, tenor and mode has been to confuse these metafunctional dimensions of the culture as semiotic system with the language that realises each of them: 'construing phenomena' (ideational), 'enacting sociality' (interpersonal) and 'composing texture' (textual).

[2] Here the authors disclose that they misunderstand 'context-metafunction resonance' as a "tying" of each metafunctional meaning in language to its counterpart in context. To be clear, 'context-metafunction resonance' means that field (e.g. biology) decides the range of ideational selections, tenor (e.g. teacher and student) decides the range of interpersonal selections, and mode (e.g. spoken) decides the range of textual selections (Halliday 1978: 117). As such, the range of ideational selections in language identifies the contextual field, the range of interpersonal selections in language identifies the contextual tenor, and the range of textual selections in language identifies the contextual mode.

Misunderstanding SFL's Architecture Of Language

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 212):

SFL has been concerned with the relation between language and context throughout its 60-odd year history. This has produced a range of models and highlighted a breadth of phenomena that must be accounted for if we are to develop a truly social semiotics. For much of the history of SFL, there have been only three variables used to model context: field, tenor, and mode. But over the last few decades, our theoretical architecture has expanded. The context plane has been expanded to include genre (Martin and Rose 2008). Our understanding of the system of language in relation to the instance has become more nuanced through the development of the cline of instantiation (Halliday 1991a; Matthiessen 1993). And our modelling of how resources in language get differentially distributed across society (allocation) and how people use language to build community (affiliation) has opened up via the scale of individuation (Martin 2010). Until these dimensions were elaborated, field, tenor, and mode were expected to do all of the heavy lifting when it comes to our modelling of context. But as we noted above, recognising the dimensions of instantiation and individuation in addition to realisation allows us to distribute the work. In doing so, we are able to make theoretically clearer distinctions between aspects of ‘context’, while holding onto the context/metafunction resonance Halliday proposed to underpin SFL modelling.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] Trivially, the first decade of this 60-odd year history was not SFL, but Scale-&-Category Grammar, which, following Firth, gave equal weight to the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes, and did not include metafunctions or system networks.

[2] To be clear, 'social semiotics' specifies a class of semiotics, as opposed to, say, somatic semiotics.

[3] As previously explained, SFL models the contextual aspects of Martin's genre as mode. Martin has merely relocated these distinctions to a higher stratum, thereby creating theoretical inconsistencies. 

[4] To be clear, instantiation and individuation are not models of context. They are dimensions of all strata. For example, at the level of context, the field tenor and mode of the culture is instantiated as the field tenor and mode of situations. The authors' model of context does not include these two poles on the cline of instantiation, because Martin (1992) misconstrued context potential as a stratum of genre, and context instance as a stratum of register, such that potential is realised by instance.

[5] This continues the authors' misunderstanding of 'context-metafunction resonance' as requiring that contextual parameters only specify linguistic realisations in their counterpart metafunction, as previously explained.

Presence As Iconicity, Negotiability And Implicitness Deconstructed

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 211-2):

We’re now in position to summarise the metafunctional perspective on presence introduced in this section. From the perspective of ideational meaning, the key variable is iconicity – to what extent does a text unfold by mirroring what it is talking about (e.g. realising what is going on by using verbs or by using nouns)? From the perspective of interpersonal meaning, the key variable is negotiability – to what extent does a text engage people in the ‘to and fro’ of dialogue, including the amount of attitude expressed and how it is triggered or targeted? From the perspective of textual meaning, the key variable is implicitness – to what extent does a text depend on exophoric reference to its sensory environment? Table 5 summarises this metafunctional factoring of presence in language as implicitness, negotiability, and iconicity.

 Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, 'presence' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode.

[2] As previously explained, 'iconicity' is the ideational meaning (metaphor) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode.

[3] As previously explained, 'negotiability' is the interpersonal meaning (speech function) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode.

[4] As previously explained, 'implicitness' is the textual meaning (exophoric demonstrative reference) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode.

The Problem With 'Implicitness'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 211):

This brings us to SFL’s more traditional concern with context dependency – focusing on the extent to which a text uses words that point to its sensory environment – to what people can see, hear, touch, taste or feel. We will use the term implicitness to refer to the degree to which texts depend on context in these deictic terms. The contrast in play here is illustrated in the example below (from Ngo et al. 2022a: 1022) which has endophoric deixis (that and it) referring to text that the teacher has just read to the class (marked by the upwards pointing arrows) alongside exophoric deixis (this, this, here, this) pointing to an image the class is working on (marked by curved arrows below).

Exophoric reference of this kind is a long-standing measure of the context dependency of a text, in both sociological and linguistic research (e.g. Hawkins 1977; Martin 1983). The items in bold above are relatively implicit and to fully interpret their meaning you have to know what they are referring to – in this case to a science teacher and her students, who are looking at a model of a cell projected onto a smart board. For texts like this there is a sense in which to fully understand them you had to be there (for the lesson) or have someone explain what was going on (as we have just done). Texts which don’t make exophoric reference of this kind are relatively context independent.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors propose 'implicitness' to be a textual perspective on textual meaning. However, the concern here is simply with exophoric demonstrative reference, and 'implicitness' simply means that the identity signalled by a grammatical demonstrative reference item has to be recovered from the environment of the text. That is, 'implicitness' is merely a rebranding of (the amount of) exophoric demonstrative reference at the grammatical stratum of language.

[2] Inexplicably, confusingly, and less iconically, Ngo et al. (2022a: 1022) use Halliday's symbol for exophoric reference as their symbol for endophoric reference, and Halliday's symbol for (cataphoric) endophoric reference as their symbol for exophoric reference. Cf. Halliday (1994: : 317):

The Problem With Negotiability

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 210):

This draws our attention to the ‘to and fro’ of face-to-face interaction, as speakers initiate exchanges and respond. The familiar Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) cycles of pedagogic discourse illustrate this point – as teacher and students engage in question, answer, evaluation cycles.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, the authors propose this 'negotiability' to be an interpersonal perspective on textual meaning. However, the authors have previously rebranded the exchange cycles of speech function as tendering and rendering which they propose to be a resource of tenor.

The Problem With 1st And 2nd Person Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 209-10):

From an interpersonal perspective, we are concerned with negotiability – the extent to which texts engage speakers with listeners as they unfold. This links with long-standing concerns within SFL between variation associated with monologue versus dialogue. In the previous example, taken from face-to-face classroom interaction, we find 1st and 2nd person exophoric pronouns referring to the teacher and students involved (in bold below) – pronouns which tie the text more closely to the ‘here and now’ than endophoric third person ones.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, personal reference items signal that an identity has to be retrieved from elsewhere. However, no identity needs to be retrieved for 1st and 2nd person pronouns, because they are defined by the speech situation itself (which is why they "tie the text more closely to the ‘here and now’ "). Accordingly, 1st and 2nd person pronouns do not make exophoric reference, as demonstrated by the following analysis by Halliday (1994: 317):

This misunderstanding arose in Martin (1992: 99), and was imported into IFG by Matthiessen, e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 604).

Problems With The Authors' Examples Of 'Iconicity'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 209):

For a lesson on mitosis for example, we can ask to what extent the teacher proceeds step-by-step through the stages as they unfold (e.g. from interphase, through prophase, metaphase, and anaphase to telophase) or whether the class moves around a bit or works backwards chronologically, beginning with the telophase where the nuclear membrane reforms as the cell divides and working back towards the originating single cell. 

We can also ask questions about iconicity with respect to the organisation of single events. In the following example, the teacher first refers to what happens in the synthesis stage as you duplicate the chromosome – with what happens construed as a verb (duplicate). The absence of this process before synthesis in her following comment is rephrased as without duplication into the chromosome – with what happens construed as a noun (duplication). In the initial phrase the grammar matches what happens more closely than in the second, since the event is realised verbally rather than nominally.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, any 'iconicity' in this example is in the relation between the ideational meanings of the teacher-students text and the ideational meanings of the text they are using to learn about mitosis.

[2] To be clear, the relative 'iconicity' in this example is the relative congruence between ideational semantics and ideational grammar.

The Misunderstandings Behind 'Iconicity'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 209):

From an ideational perspective, we are concerned with iconicity – the degree to which a text matches what it is talking about.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, for the authors, 'iconicity' is textual meaning viewed from an ideational perspective. That is, 'iconicity' is said to be 'creating information flow' viewed from the perspective of 'construing experience'.

However, the authors' notion of iconicity derives from a proposed relation of ideational congruence in language to field in context. Martin & Matruglio (2020: 102-3):

…an activity sequence as a whole can be realised not as a discourse semantic sequence of events, but named as a figure… . And semantic configurations such as these may be themselves construed grammatically as nominal groups … rather than clauses. So from an ideational perspective we can use the degree of iconicity between what is going on in a field and its construal in discourse as a further measure of contextual dependency, with more iconic realisations more context dependent than less iconic ones. The main linguistic resource used to rework ideational iconicity in discourse is grammatical metaphor…

Importantly, this misunderstands a congruent relation between ideational lexicogrammar and ideational semantics as an iconic relation between the ideational content of language (text) and the ideational dimension of context ("what it is talking about").

This misunderstanding largely derives from the misconstrual of 'activity sequences' as field instead of semantics in Martin (1992); evidence here. However, in later work, Martin & Rose (2007), 'activity sequences' were relocated to discourse semantics, though as experiential rather than logical systems; evidence here. The more recent re-relocation of 'activity sequences' back to field in Martin & Matruglio (2020) is thus both inconsistent with Martin & Rose (2007) and a misconstrual of language as context.

A second source of this misunderstanding derives from Legitimation Code Theory in sociology, whose 'social realist' epistemological stance contradicts the 'immanent' stance of SFL Theory, and in which meaning is, instead, modelled as knowledge. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 442):

If a different standpoint is adopted, the frame of reference may be an extra-semantic one: either because the approach to meaning is transcendent rather than immanent or because the object of modelling is taken to be knowledge rather than meaning.

The Metafunctional And Stratal Misunderstandings Behind 'Presence'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 208-9):

… we have revisited work on context dependency in SFL to include ideational and interpersonal perspectives alongside the more traditional textual ones. As noted above, taken together, the contributions from the different metafunctions are referred to as presence …. This problematises concerns in SFL for the cline between action and reflection …, and monologue versus dialogue, acknowledging that they do not simply impinge upon textual meanings, but meanings across all metafunctions.

Reviewer Comments:

The authors' argument here is as follows: 

Premiss 1: The mode of a context is realised by ideational and interpersonal language as well as textual language.

Premiss 2: This is a problem for context-metafunction resonance.

Conclusion: The solution is to propose that there are ideational, interpersonal and textual components of textual language, and to locate the resultant ensemble, 'presence', in mode at the level of context.

The problem with Premiss 2 is that it is false, because it misunderstands context-metafunction resonance as requiring that mode only have implications for textual meaning. The problem with the conclusion is that it misunderstands both stratification and metafunction. As previously explained for the authors' frameworks of 'mass', and 'association,' the authors' framework of 'presence' confuses the level of context (mode) with the level of language (textual meaning), and misunderstands one metafunction, the textual, to include all three metafunctions.

Association As Participation, Accord, And Coordination Deconstructed

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 208):

We’re now in position to summarise the metafunctional perspective on association presented above. From the perspective of ideational meaning, the key variable is participation – to what extent to people share understandings about what to do and who or what is involved? From the perspective of interpersonal meaning the key variable is accord – to what extent are feelings shared, explicitly and implicitly, about what is going on, and how cooperative are speakers where interaction is involved? From the perspective of textual meaning the key variable is coordination – to what extent do speakers smooth the flow of discourse by taking for granted information that is shared? Table 4 summarises this metafunctional factoring of association as participation, accord, and coordination.

 Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, 'association' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[2] As previously explained, 'participation' is the contextual parameter of field confused with the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[3] As previously explained, 'accord' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

[4] As previously explained, 'coordination' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of tenor.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Coordination'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 206):

From a textual perspective, we are concerned with what we will generalise as coordination – involving taken for granted understandings smoothing the flow of discourse based on the experience of ‘kith and kin’ spending time together, and the relative control over the textual organisation of a text. Homophoric reference is a strong marker of taken-for-granted understandings of association since it identifies entities that are not necessarily accessible from the co-text or material context of an utterance. Familiar examples from domestic situations would be presuming reference such as the fridge, the car, the bathroom, the yard, and so on (where it would be ridiculous to say there’s a fridge in the kitchen; grab some beer from it, unless there were another fridge elsewhere that might be confused with it). As far as proliferation is concerned, the more that can be presumed, the closer the relationship.

Reviewer Comments:

For the authors, 'coordination' is interpersonal meaning viewed from a textual perspective. That is, 'coordination' is 'enacting social relations' viewed from the perspective of 'creating information flow'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'coordination' is simply the textual creation of information flow, misunderstood as tenor. The textual perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Accord'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 205):

From an interpersonal perspective we are concerned with what we will generalise as accord – i.e. sharing feelings about people and things and cooperating in dialogue. Shared feelings may involve emotional reactions to triggers of various kinds, judgements of people’s character and behaviour and the value of ‘things’ (including natural phenomena, books, films, songs, performances, and so on).

Reviewer Comments:

For the authors, 'accord' is interpersonal meaning viewed from an interpersonal perspective. That is, 'accord' is 'enacting social relations' viewed from the perspective of 'enacting social relations'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'accord' is simply the interpersonal enactment of social relations, misunderstood here as tenor. The interpersonal perspective taken here is on language itself, not on interpersonal meaning.

The Misunderstandings Behind 'Participation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 204):

From an ideational perspective we are concerned with what we will generalise as participation – i.e. undertaking or discussing some domestic or institutionalised activity (e.g. at home, at work, in recreation, in worship). These activities involve shared knowledge about what to do and who or what is involved. The more you understand the more you are part of the group. As far as language is concerned, a lot of such knowledge is encoded in specialised or technical lexis that only insiders can follow and whose development depends on informal and formal mentoring practices.

 

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors characterise 'participation' as an ideational ('construing experience') perspective on social relations (tenor). But

• undertaking some domestic or institutionalised activity is material, not semiotic;
• discussing some domestic or institutionalised activity is the languaging that realises a field;
• knowledge about what to do and who is involved is ideational meaning;
• knowledge encoded in specialised or technical lexis is ideational meaning;

[2] To be clear, the more you know about SFL Theory, the less you are part of the group.🎄

The Metafunctional And Stratal Misunderstandings Behind 'Association'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 204):

Martin (1992: 529, 532) provides more detail on the language systems in play as far as Poynton’s patterns of usage are concerned, concentrating on interpersonal systems. But even there textual systems (e.g. rhythm, homophora) and ideational systems (e.g. agency, technical lexis) are brought in to provide a more complete picture. This suggests that as far as social relations are concerned, a multi-functional perspective will prove useful. Below we suggest a framework for what we will refer to as association – comprising ideational (participation), interpersonal (accord), and textual (coordination) patterns of usage as interlocutors enact relations of status and contact with one another.

Reviewer Comments:

The authors' argument here is as follows: 

Premiss 1: The tenor of a context is realised by textual and ideational language as well as interpersonal language.

Premiss 2: This is a problem for context-metafunction resonance.

Conclusion: The solution is to propose that there are ideational, interpersonal and textual components of interpersonal language, and to locate the resultant ensemble, 'association', in tenor at the level of context.

The problem with Premiss 2 is that it is false, because it misunderstands context-metafunction resonance as requiring that tenor only have implications for interpersonal meaning. The problem with the conclusion is that it misunderstands both stratification and metafunction. As previously explained for the authors' framework of 'mass', the authors' framework of 'association' confuses the level of context (tenor) with the level of language (interpersonal meaning), and misunderstands one metafunction, the interpersonal, to include all three metafunctions.

Mass As Technicality, Iconisation, And Aggregation Deconstructed

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 203):

We’re now in position to summarise the metafunctional perspective on mass presented above. 

From the perspective of ideational meaning, the key variable is technicality – to what extent is meaning distilled as technical terms arranged as uncommon sense property, classification, composition, and activity? 

From the perspective of interpersonal meaning the key variable is iconisation – to what extent is knowledge charged with values shared by members of a community? 

From the perspective of textual meaning the key variable is aggregation – to what extent does a text consolidate meaning, prospectively or retrospectively, as it unfolds? 

Table 3 summarises this metafunctional factoring of mass as technicality, iconisation, and aggregation.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously explained, 'mass' is the meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

[2] As previously explained, 'technicality' is the ideational meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

[3] As previously explained, 'iconisation' is the interpersonal meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

[4] As previously explained, 'aggregation' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Aggregation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 201):

Turning to textual meaning, another important dimension of mass is what we refer to as aggregation – a process whereby texts package their presentation of knowledge and values.

Reviewer Comments:

For the authors, 'aggregation' is ideational meaning viewed from a textual perspective. That is, 'aggregation' is 'construing experience' viewed from the perspective of 'creating information flow'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'aggregation' is simply a textual creation of information flow, misunderstood as field. The textual perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Iconisation'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 200-1):

As a popular science writer, Mukherjee does not of course leave us there. He also has the task of celebrating the achievements of the scientists involved and their discoveries. This means we need to bring interpersonal meaning into the picture – to show how value is added to knowledge via a process we refer to as iconisation (Martin 2010). 

… In general terms, the point we are making here is that specialised knowledge involves both understandings and their value.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] For the authors, 'iconisation' is ideational meaning viewed from an interpersonal perspective. That is, 'iconisation' is 'construing experience' viewed from the perspective of 'enacting social relations'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'iconisation' is simply an interpersonal enactment of social relations, misunderstood as field. The interpersonal perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

[2] To be clear, here the authors present Halliday's model as their own discovery. For example, Halliday (2003 [1992]: 384):

But the full creative power of an act of meaning arises from the fact that language both construes and enacts. It is not only a way of thinking about the world; it is also, at one and the same time, a way of acting on the world — which means, of course, acting on the other people in it.

The Misunderstanding Behind 'Technicality'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 200):

From an ideational perspective we are concerned with technicality – in particular the nature of more and less common-sense knowledge in discourse. Mukherjee (2022), in his popular science celebration of cell biology, introduces readers to seminal work on cell composition …

In doing so Mukharjee moves readers from common sense observations about differences between organisms and their substance to the uncommon sense understanding that the building blocks of all life are cells. From the perspective of field, he construes specialised composition.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] For the authors, 'technicality' is ideational meaning viewed from an ideational perspective. That is, 'technicality' is 'construing experience' viewed from the perspective of 'construing experience'. For SFL Theory, on the other hand, 'technicality' describes the ideational meaning construed of experience, misunderstood as field. The ideational perspective taken here is on language itself, not on ideational meaning.

[2] As previously explained, such composition hierarchies are not field, but construals of experience in the language that realises a field. The misunderstanding here is of stratification: confusing context and language

The Metafunctional And Stratal Misunderstandings Behind 'Mass'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 199):

Responding to Maton’s characterisation of semantic density as involving ‘formal definitions, empirical descriptions or feelings, political sensibilities, taste, values, morals, affiliations’, we have revisited work on technicality in an effort to broaden SFL’s conception of specialised knowledge. 

In terms of SFL’s concept of metafunction this means extending the focus on ideational meaning to include interpersonal and textual perspectives as well. As noted above, taken together, the contributions from the different metafunctions are referred to as mass (introduced in Martin [2017] and further elaborated with respect to the analysis of infographics in Martin and Unsworth [2024]).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in taking a 'language-based approach to cognition', SFL models 'knowledge' as meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: ix-x):

It seems to us that our dialogue is relevant to current debates in cognitive science. In one sense, we are offering it as an alternative to mainstream currents in this area, since we are saying that cognition "is" (that is, can most profitably be modelled as) not thinking but meaning: the "mental" map is in fact a semiotic map, and "cognition" is just a way of talking about language. In modelling knowledge as meaning, we are treating it as a linguistic construct: hence, as something that is construed in the lexicogrammar. Instead of explaining language by reference to cognitive processes, we explain cognition by reference to linguistic processes.

[2] To be clear,  this "extension" of the focus on ideational meaning misunderstands SFL’s concept of metafunction. To paraphrase Halliday (2003 [1995]: 414-5):

• the ideational metafunction is the function of language in construing experience as meaning;
• the interpersonal metafunction is the function of language in enacting social relations as meaning; and
• the textual metafunction is the function of language in creating the flow of information.

In this model, ideational meaning does not "include contributions" from interpersonal and textual "perspectives", any more than the TRANSITIVITY system of the clause "includes contributions" from interpersonal and textual "perspectives". MOOD and THEME are Interpersonal and textual "perspectives", but on the clause, not on the ideational wording of the clause.

[3] To be clear, defining 'mass' in terms of the meaning of language and locating it in the contextual parameter of field is a contradiction in terms.

Three Of The Misunderstandings Behind 'Mass', 'Association' And 'Presence'

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 199):

In this section we turn from realisation to instantiation and introduce a multifunctional perspective on some of the traditional concerns of field, tenor, and mode studies in previous work. 

• Re-visiting traditional work on field leads us to a multi-functional perspective on knowledge-building we refer to as mass (Martin 2017); 
• re-visiting traditional work on tenor leads us to a multi-functional perspective on enacting social relations we refer to as association; and 
• re-visiting mode leads us to a multifunctional perspective on organising information flow we refer to as presence (Martin and Matruglio 2013). … 

We propose mass, association, and presence as principles of co-selection during the process of instantiation – which we believe provide a partial account of the phenomenon of permeability in Hasan’s work as introduced above.

Reviewer Comments:

To be clear, from this point on, the theoretical confusions in this paper multiply.

[1] The authors here continue their confusion of context with language:

• 'mass' confuses field (context) with "knowledge building" (ideational language + semogenesis);
• 'association' confuses tenor (context) with enacting social relations (interpersonal language); and
• 'presence' confuses mode (context) with organising information flow (textual language).

[2] It will be seen that these multifunctional perspectives involve viewing each of the metafunctions from the perspective of each of the metafunctions. A grammatical example of this approach would be to view clause transitivity from ideational, interpersonal and textual perspectives. To be clear, it is the clause itself that is viewed from metafunctional perspectives, not any of the metafunctional strands of the clause.

[3] As previously explained, instantiation is the relation between potential and instance at a given level of symbolic abstraction. As such, variables that are said to be at the level of context — mass, association and presence — cannot be principles of instantiation for the level of language. That is, here the authors misunderstand instantiation as a relation between context and language. If mass, association and presence are said to be potential at the level of context, then they themselves are instantiated at the level of context.

[4] To be clear, 'permeability' here simply means that options in one parameter of context, say field, can preselect or exclude options in another, say tenor or mode. The same phenomenon occurs in language where an option in THEME, say, preselects or excludes options in MOOD or TRANSITIVITY.

Moving From The Misunderstandings Of Realisation To The Misunderstandings Of Instantiation

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198-9):

As for tenor and field, these systems of mode – DISTRIBUTION, JUNCTURE, and PULSING – offer a model of the resources drawn on to organise text, rather than a common-sense classification of different modes. This model of mode as a resource is considerably less developed than that for field (Doran and Martin 2021) and for tenor (Doran et al. 2024), but it nonetheless offers a means of maintaining the context-metafunction resonance that has underpinned SFL’s conception of the relationship between the internal and external functionality of language.

Of course, this does not mean that other considerations often grouped under field, tenor, and mode (e.g. degrees of technicality, social contact, and context-dependence) do not need to be accounted for. Rather, it means that they need to be conceptualised in a theoretically clearer manner. To do this, we propose a perspective from instantiation that treats these and other variables as coupling principles – i.e. as principles for the co-selection and arrangement of choices in language.

 

Reviewer Comments:

[1] As previously shown, these "mode" systems all derive from misunderstanding context as language.

[2] As previous shown, the authors misunderstand context-metafunction resonance as requiring that a contextual parameter only implicate linguistic systems of the counterpart metafunction. On this misunderstanding, the field of logic implicating 'proposition' in the interpersonal system of the speech function would constitute a reduction in context-metafunction resonance.

Moreover, as previously shown, the authors themselves contribute to a "reduction of resonance" by interpreting exchange structure (interpersonal semantics) as a resource of mode (textual context).

[3] To be clear, instantiation is the relation between potential and instance at a given level of symbolic abstraction. As such, variables at one level, context, cannot be principles of instantiation for another level, language. That is, here the authors begin their misunderstanding of instantiation as a relation between context and language. This is the direct opposite of conceptualising context "in a theoretically clearer manner".

Confusing Mode With "Martin's" Text Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198):

Similarly, the use of text reference (Martin 1992), often coupled with semiotic entities (Hao 2020) and connexion resources, also indicates a distribution of information. In the following (constructed) example, the semiotic entity three main arguments points forward to the fact that a set of arguments are required for the full meaning of the section; the internal connexions First, Second, and Finally signal that each argument connects either forward or backward with the other arguments; and the text reference None of these arguments at the end, looks backwards by making clear that the information that is ‘not convincing’ is to be found earlier in the text. These resources all work together to distribute information throughout the text (while also working to demarcate and foreground different components of this information).

There have been three main arguments against students wearing uniforms. First, they dampens students’ individual expression. Second, uniforms are expensive. And third, they harken back to an old-fashioned time of rigid uniformity. None of these arguments are convincing.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with the text reference of Halliday & Hasan (1976: 52), and misleads by plagiaristically crediting Martin (1992) as its intellectual source.

[2] This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with Martin's logical discourse semantic system of connexion, which rebrands his confusion of Halliday's grammatical systems of cohesive conjunction (textual) and clause complexing (logical). Evidence here.

Confusing Mode With Endophoric Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 198):

Distribution can also occur within texts. The clearest instance of this involves drawing on anaphora – whereby an instance refers backwards in a text, often via pronouns. In the following text, the teacher first puts forward the entity ‘nucleolus’, and then each subsequent reference uses it to indicate the information being sought is distributed across the text:

Phoricity resources such as those noted above are one of the key means of distributing information. But they are by no means the only resource for doing this. In the text above, the two questions put forward by the teacher and student: Do you know what the nucleolus is? And Isn’t that where it make ribosomes? also make clear that the information of the text is to be distributed – in this case that another move is needed for closure.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This simply confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with a linguistic system two strata below: the lexicogrammatical system of endophoric reference (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

[2] To be clear, here the authors propose that exchange structure (interpersonal semantics) is a resource of mode (textual context), which, as well as confusing context with language, contradicts their claim  that their model conforms to (their misunderstanding of) context-metafunction resonance,.

Confusing Mode With Ideational Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 197-8):

This contrasts with a number of instances at the beginning of the class, where the teacher is establishing what they are going to do. In these instances, marked in bold, the teacher is indicating that there is no relevant information elsewhere that is needed to follow what is going on – the information is not distributed but immediate.

What we’re going to do today is model a representation of mitosis as a point of reference to explain these stages. I’m going to give you some materials so when we jump into our groups you’re going to construct a model for the stages.

The immediacy of the information is established in three of these instances through presenting reference (Martin 1992) – a representation of mitosis, some materials, a model, where the indefinite Deictics indicate that these participants are being introduced and are not to be recovered from elsewhere in the text or the situation. The fourth possible instance, our groups, draws on homophora (Halliday and Hasan 1976); in this case the entity’s identity is presumed, and so does not need to be recovered from anywhere else.

Reviewer Comments:

This confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with two misunderstandings of a linguistic system two strata below: the lexicogrammatical system of reference (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

On the one hand, Martin's 'presenting reference' misunderstands reference in the sense of ideational denotation; see the evidence here. On the other hand, the authors misunderstand what is not a reference item, the first person determiner our, as a homophoric reference item.

Confusing Mode With Exophoric Reference

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 197):

Finally, mode offers resources for distributing information across a text, via a system called DISTRIBUTION. The basic distinction is between an instance of language that indicates that there is further information needed to understand what is being said (i.e. that the information is in some sense distributed) or that all the information is given in the immediate instance. 

Distribution of information occurs throughout the classroom example we have been looking at, where the teacher refers across modalities to the slides they are using (in bold below):

I have this image here of the cell undergoing mitosis for two replicated daughter cells. You’ve got here DNA replication with the cell cycle – what part is that called?

In this example, the teacher is specifying that the information needed is distributed between the spoken language and the slide they are looking at. She does this by drawing on exophoric reference to the infographic (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Martin 1992).

Reviewer Comments:

This simply confuses the contextual parameter of mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with a linguistic system two strata below: the lexicogrammatical system of exophoric reference (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

Problems With The Mode System Of Pulsing

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 196-7):

In addition to chunking up the text, mode also functions as a resource for foregrounding and backgrounding information, through a system called PULSING. In the excerpt above, this is most clearly realised through the Hyper-Themes and Hyper-News which foreground the key meanings that occur. In this case, what is foregrounded is the ideational category of archaea as a branch of life in the Hyper-Theme and the eventual interpersonal vindication of this category and Woese in the Hyper-New:

And now the third branch: archaea.

[…]

But decades later, we have largely accepted, validated, and vindicated his theory, so that archaea are now classified as a distinct, third domain of living creatures.

Foregrounding of this kind is potentially realised through a range of systems including PERIODICITY in discourse semantics, THEME in lexicogrammar, INFORMATION and SALIENCE in phonology, as well as paralinguistic vocal features of SOUND QUALITY, including loudness, tenseness, pitch height (van Leeuwen 1999), the use of gestural beating (Ngo et al. 2022b) and salience within visual multimodal texts (Kress and van Leeuwen 2020). It offers a resource for composing texts in terms of pulses of prominence, foregrounding, and backgrounding information as a text flows.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This confuses mode, 'the part played by language' in terms of the culture, with Martin's discourse semantic functions hyper-Theme (topic sentence) and hyper-New (paragraph summary), and labels the confusion as the mode system of PULSING.

[2] This confuses mode, context, with the linguistic systems that mark textual prominence, and misconstrues the lexicogrammatical systems of INFORMATION and LEXICAL SALIENCE as phonology (!). This basic misunderstanding has its origin in Martin (1992: 384), where INFORMATION is displaced to phonology and misaligned with the interpersonal metafunction (NEGOTIATION):

[3] For the misunderstandings and plagiarism in Ngo et al. (2022), see the very detailed review here.

The 'Arguable' Metafunctional Address Of Internal Connexion

Doran, Martin & Herrington (2024: 195-6):

Indeed if we zoom out to an even longer stretch than we have here, the whole excerpt functions together with the previous sections on eukaryotes and prokaryotes as a single, larger chunk introducing what organisms are. This is suggested by the internal addition connexion And (which suggests a linking with the previous chunk) and the chain splitting the third branch (which, while introducing archaea and in doing so establishes a new participant chain) which in fact refer back to and illustrate similarity with the previous two branches. Importantly, this hierarchy of demarcation is developed not by a single discourse semantic system, such as PERIODICITY, IDENTIFICATION, or INTERNAL CONNEXION,¹¹ but by them all working together. And since these systems are all primarily concerned with organising texture, the resonance between textual metafunction and mode is sustained. Establishing hierarchies of demarcation also conforms to the general periodic structure of textual systems, whereby the same ‘meanings’ can be overlayed on top of each other at bigger of smaller stretches (Halliday 1979).

¹¹ The precise metafunctional address of internal CONNEXION, which we treat as a textual resource here, is arguable. Martin (1992) interprets it as ‘textual grammatical metaphor’, a position he retracts in Martin (2024) in his discussion of what he calls ‘coordination’ resources.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, mode is the part language is playing in terms of the culture. Chunks of information, on the other hand, are language, as too are Martin's discourse semantic systems, of PERIODICITY, IDENTIFICATION, and INTERNAL CONNEXION.

[2] This again misunderstands context-metafunction resonance as requiring that only textual systems realise the parameters of mode. One source of this misunderstanding is Martin's misunderstanding of metafunctions and strata as interacting modules. Martin (1992: 390, 488):

Each of the presentations of linguistic text forming resources considered above adopted a modular perspective. As far as English Text is concerned this has two main dimensions: stratification, and within strata, metafunction. …

The problem addressed is a fundamental concern of modular models of semiosis — namely, once modules are distinguished, how do they interface? What is the nature of the conversation among components?

[3] To be clear, the conjunction (now 'connexion') in Martin (1992: 179) is his logical system of the discourse semantic stratum, and it subsumes the internal variety:

However, this discourse semantic system is Martin's rebranding of the textual grammatical system of cohesive conjunction (Halliday & Hasan 1976), confused with the logical grammatical system of clause complexing (Halliday 1985). That is, the metafunctional address of this system is not 'arguable'; it is merely misunderstood by Martin and those taught by him.