Some Misunderstandings Underlying 'Mass'

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 16):

• For field, from the perspective of ideational meaning, the key variable is technicality – i.e., to what extent is meaning distilled as technical terms arranged as uncommon sense classification, composition, and activity (e.g., canine/feline vs dog/cat)? 
• From the perspective of interpersonal meaning the key variable is iconisation – i.e., to what extent is a phenomenon charged with values shared by members of a community (e.g., for the SFL community contrasting reactions to figures such as Halliday or Chomsky)? 
• From the perspective of textual meaning the key variable is aggregation – i.e., to what extent does a text consolidate meaning, prospectively or retrospectively, as it unfolds (e.g., the title of Table 1.2 below vs its contents)? 

Martin suggests mass as a cover term for these syndromes of usage. Table 1.2 summarises this metafunctional factoring of mass as technicality, iconisation and aggregation.

Reviewer Comments:

As previously demonstrated in the review of Rethinking Context: Realisation, Instantiation, And Individuation In Systemic Functional Linguistics (Doran et al 2024):

• '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.
• 'aggregation' is the textual meaning of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of field.