The Misunderstandings Underlying 'Presence'

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 15-6):

In recent years, Martin (Martin, 2017/2020; Martin & Matruglio, 2013/2020; Martin & Unsworth, 2024) has revisited the register variables classifying modes and fields from the perspective of metafunctions (i.e., ideational, interpersonal and textual meaning). Influenced by Maton's (2014) concepts of semantic gravity and semantic density he suggests that types of mode and field can in fact be associated with syndromes of choices from across all three metafunctions. 

• For mode, from the perspective of textual meaning, the key variable is implicitness – e.g., to what extent does a text depend on reference out to the physical situation?  

• From the perspective of interpersonal meaning the key variable is negotiability – e.g., to what extent does a text engage people in the 'to and fro' of dialogue, including the amount of emotion expressed?  

• From the perspective of ideational meaning the key variable is iconicity – e.g. to what extent does a text unfold by mirroring what it is talking about? 

Martin and Matruglio (2013/2020) suggest presence as a cover term for these syndromes of usage. Table 1.1 summarises this metafunctional factoring of presence in language as implicitness, negotiability, and iconicity.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This demonstrates very serious misunderstandings of both stratification and metafunction. In terms of stratification, the relation between context and language is realisation, whereas subclassification misunderstands the relation as one of delicacy (hyponymy). Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 145):

In terms of metafunction, the contextual parameters of field, tenor and mode are themselves categorisations of the culture as semiotic system according to metafunction. To subclassify metafunctions in terms of metafunctions is to misunderstand the dimension of metafunction as a scale of delicacy.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, mode and field are realised by meanings of all three metafunctions. The different syndromes of choices of these meanings constitute different registers, which realise different subcultures/situation types, as defined by contextual configurations of field, tenor and mode variables. Here the authors have confused the dimensions of stratification and instantiation. 

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

• '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.
• 'implicitness' is the textual meaning (exophoric demonstrative reference) of language misunderstood as the contextual parameter of mode.