Rebranding And Circular Reasoning

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 46):

As these examples show, the use of engagement can produce a text that is very interpersonally nuanced – rendering a proposition that may or may not have been stated, while at the same time tendering a new proposition. 

This gives some insight into why humanities texts, which regularly draw heavily on engagement, can at times be such ‘heavy going’ (i.e., why they can have such strong interpersonal mass (Martin, 2017/2020) – they are responding to a range of stances in their academic community while at the same time trying to put forward a stance themselves (Doran, 2020a, 2020b; Hood, 2010, 2022).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, these examples have simply illustrated the interpersonal semantic systems of ENGAGEMENT and SPEECH FUNCTION. The authors, however, have recategorised such propositions using the paradigmatic features 'rendering' and 'tendering', and misunderstood these semantic moves as parameters of the contextual system of tenor, despite 'tenor' referring to 'the statuses and role relationships; who is taking part in the interaction' (Halliday 1994: 390).

[2] To be clear, the authors’ explanation here is circular: humanities texts are said to be ‘heavy going’ because they exhibit strong ‘interpersonal mass’, which in turn is defined by their reliance on ENGAGEMENT resources — the very thing that supposedly makes them heavy going. No independent criterion is offered for identifying or measuring ‘interpersonal mass’ apart from the difficulty it is invoked to explain. As such, the term functions as a rebranding of the problem, not an explanation of it — offering semantic tautology in place of theoretical insight.

The Problem With Field As 'A Resource For Construing Phenomena'

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 21):

So instead of classifying fields as say horizontal or vertical, or as singulars or regions (as in Bernstein, 1996/2000) or as science, social science or humanities (e.g. Martin, 1992; Martin, 2007a, 2007b), or as ‘personal toilet’ or ‘games’ (Halliday, 1978), field can be reconstrued as a resource for construing phenomena. These resources can then be tuned in to relevant ideational systems in language (across strata) as far as realisation is concerned and the results coupled with interpersonal and/or textual meanings as required from the perspective of instantiation (i.e., mass).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This confuses context and language. It is the ideational metafunction of language that is the resource for construing experience as meaning (phenomena). Field is the ideational dimension of the context of construing experience.

[2] To be clear, these resources already are the ideational systems of language.

[3] 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.

The 3 Fundamental Misunderstandings That Invalidate The Model In This Book

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 18):

Reconsidering context in this way in turn opens up the possibility 

• of reconceiving (from the perspective of instantiation) the types of field classifications pursued by previous models as syndromes of technicality, iconisation and aggregation (mass); 
• of reconceiving types of mode as syndromes of implicitness, negotiability, and iconicity (presence); and 
• of reconceiving types of tenor as syndromes of reciprocity and proliferation (association). 

And this in turn opens up the possibility of abandoning the classificatory approach to modelling field, tenor, and mode along the realisation hierarchy – and replacing it with a social semiotic perspective on register variables as resources for construing phenomena (field), enacting social relations (tenor) and composing information flow (mode). 

Developing SFL along these lines in turn opens up the possibility of re-confirming the resonance between field, tenor, and mode and metafunctions that is put at risk by research dedicated to classifying fields, tenor, and modes in relatively common-sense terms.

Reviewer Comments:

[1] To be clear, the authors' first proposal is to miscontrue context as language; specifically, to

• misconstrue contextual field as the ideational meaning of language (mass) — sub-classified as ideational meaning (technicality), interpersonal meaning (iconisation) and textual meaning (aggregation);
• misconstrue contextual mode as the textual meaning of language (presence) — sub-classified as ideational meaning (iconicity), interpersonal meaning (negotiability) and textual meaning (implicitness); and
• misconstrue contextual tenor as the interpersonal meaning of language (association).

[2] To be clear, the authors' second proposal is to misconstrue language as context; specifically, to

• misconstrue  construing experience as ideational meaning as field;
• misconstrue enacting social relations as interpersonal meaning as tenor; and
• misconstrue composing information flow as textual meaning as mode.

[3] This is misleading because it is not true. On the one hand, context-metafunction resonance is not put at risk by Halliday's characterisation of field, tenor and mode, and on the other, if it were put at risk, the authors' reconceptions could not assist in this regard, since they confuse context with language.

As previously explained, the authors misunderstand context-metafunction resonance to mean an exclusive relation between context and language on the basis of metafunction. However, what context-metafunction resonance actually means is that

• differences in field are realised by differences in ideational meaning,
• differences in tenor are realised by differences in interpersonal meaning, and
• differences in mode are realised by differences in textual meaning.

Why Mass, Presence, And Association Cannot Be Principles Of Instantiation

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 18):

Instantiation is typically considered in terms of the coupling of choices as conditioned by varying probabilities in different texts, text types and diatypes. 

But recognising the concepts of mass, presence, and association (i.e., status/contact) as metafunctionally diversified syndromes of choice offers a perspective on instantiation that can help explain why certain choices co-occur in certain situations. That is, mass, presence and association can be considered principles of instantiation – principles underpinning the co-selection and arrangement of features across strata and metafunctions. This can help us move away from relatively ad hoc explanations as to why particular choices are taken up in particular texts or situations and move us into considering different texts and the various domains they enter into in terms of a multidimensional set of principles. 

For example, scientific writing tends to involve significant interlocking networks of activity, taxonomy and property, but relatively little evaluative language in comparison to other disciplines (e.g. Halliday & Martin, 1993). We could explain this in terms of science’s aim for very strong ideational mass (technicality) but relatively weak interpersonal mass (iconisation). We could also describe the fact that it regularly aims to link theory to data as illustrating a wide range of ideational presence (iconicity).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] Here the authors misrepresent their own misunderstanding of instantiation as the "typical" view. As a process, instantiation is the selection of features and the activation of their realisation statements in logogenesis. At the system pole of the cline of instantiation, every feature of system has a probability of instantiation relative to other features in the system, and at the instance pole, texts vary by the relative frequency of feature selection.

The midway point of variation on the cline can be viewed from the system pole as register ("diatype"), or from the instance pole as text type, with registers varying in terms of the probability of feature selection, and text types varying in terms of the frequency of feature selection.

Importantly, at ontogenetic and phylogenetic timescales, the probabilities of feature selection in the system are altered by the frequencies of feature selection in the instances.

[2] To be clear, even if mass, presence and association provided a theoretically valid model of context, they could not "be considered as principles underpinning the co-selection and arrangement of features across strata and metafunctions" simply because instantiation is not an inter-stratal relation. Instantiation is the relation between system and instance at each stratum. There is no instantiation relation between context and language. Context and language are related by realisation, elaborating identity, so there is no causal (enhancing) relation between them.

[3] This is misleading, because this is simply the imposition of terms that do not provide explanation. That is,

• it does not explain why science writing has less evaluation, it just labels it as strongly technical;
• it does not explain why science writing has less evaluation, it just labels it as weakly iconised.

[4] As demonstrated here, the authors' notion of iconicity 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").

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.