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.