Problems With The Authors' 'Resource Guide'

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 26-7):

As will be clear form this introduction, tenor is one module in the overall model of language and social context assumed here. Because of its position in the architecture of SFL (between genre and language and alongside field and mode) we draw on a wide range of descriptions of English – some of which may not be familiar to readers. Below we note some useful introductory resources for key descriptions, as well as the key reference books for each area.

Paralanguage
Martin, J. R. & M. Zappavigna (2019) Embodied meaning: a systemic functional perspective on body language. Functional Linguistics 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-018-0065-9 

Ngo, T., Hood, S., Martin, J.R., Painter, C., Smith B.A. and Zappavigna, M. (2022) Modelling Paralanguage Using Systemic Functional Semiotics. London: Bloomsbury. …

Discourse semantics
Chapters 2 (appraisal) and 7 (negotiation) of Martin and Rose (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum. 

Martin, J.R. (1992) English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the misunderstanding of strata and metafunctions as modules has persisted since 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?

[2] For a meticulous review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019) that identifies many of its misunderstandings of SFL Theory, see Martin & Zappavigna's Model Of Paralanguage.

[3] For a meticulous review of Ngo et al. that identifies many of its misunderstandings of SFL Theory, see Modelling Paralanguage Using Systemic Functional Semiotics.

[4] For a meticulous review of Martin and Rose (2007) that identifies many of its misunderstandings of SFL Theory, see Working With Discourse: Meaning Beyond The Clause.

[5] For a meticulous review of Martin (1992) that identifies many of its misunderstandings of SFL Theory, see English Text: System And Structure.