Against Conflation: 3 Method, Institutionalisation, and Community Reception in SFL

In Posts 1 and 2, we have outlined the architectural and conceptual issues in a reinterpretation of SFL that treats strata as modules, flattens symbolic abstraction, and constructs new strata through systematic relabelling. In this final instalment of the mini-series, we examine how these moves are embedded in a method of theorising, and why they have been accepted or left largely unchallenged within the broader SFL community.

The Method of Relabelling

A defining feature of this approach is its methodological orientation. Rather than working inductively from data or testing the implications of Halliday’s stratified model, the method proceeds by:

1. Taking pre-existing theoretical descriptions (Halliday, Hasan, and others)

2. Renaming categories and systems

3. Reassigning them to newly declared strata

4. Presenting the results as a novel framework

The power of this method derives from its ability to convert misunderstandings into apparent innovations. Conceptual slippages, such as conflating reference with deixis or relocating grammatical systems to a “discourse” semantic stratum become mechanisms of differentiation rather than errors to be corrected.

Institutionalisation and Reception

Several factors have facilitated the integration of this method into the community:

• Familiar vocabulary: Using canonical SFL terms (semantics, lexicogrammar, register) gives immediate legitimacy, even when the underlying architecture is altered.

• Presentation as corrective or generative: Rebranding is framed as a necessary advance, often in response to perceived gaps in Halliday’s model, rather than as an exercise in relabelling.

• Selective focus on accessible phenomena: Choosing systems like cohesion or speech function allows the new model to appear practical and testable without confronting the deeper architecture.

• Community dynamics: Scholars new to SFL or seeking to differentiate themselves from the canonical model may adopt the relabelled framework without engaging deeply with stratification theory.

Why the Community Let It Happen

Acceptance is not simply a matter of intellectual laziness. It is structurally motivated:

• The vocabulary is familiar, reducing cognitive friction.

• Relabelling creates a perception of innovation without requiring deep engagement with the conceptual foundation of stratification and instantiation.

• The field is dispersed; oversight of foundational misunderstandings is structurally likely.

This is not to suggest bad faith. The community is acting rationally within the constraints of its disciplinary structure. But the outcome is that a rival model can proliferate while leaving its theoretical weaknesses largely unexamined.

Consequences for SFL Theory

The methodological and social acceptance of relabelling has two main consequences:

1. Apparent novelty masks conceptual flattening: The new stratum may look like an architectural addition, but it collapses distinctions critical to understanding the relation between strata, instantiation, and system networks.

2. Misunderstanding becomes a resource: Conceptual slippages are not errors; they are functional tools for producing differentiation in the field. This explains why the same misunderstandings recur in subsequent literature.

Looking Forward

Understanding this combination of method and community reception is vital. It demonstrates that theoretical errors are not only technical; they are socialised and perpetuated through institutional practices. Only by attending to both the architecture of SFL and the practices of the community can one critically engage with derivative models, distinguishing genuinely new insights from novelty produced by relabelling.

This completes the three-part mini-series on the architectural misunderstandings, relabelling, and method in contemporary reinterpretations of SFL. Together, the posts have traced the path from:

1. Architectural collapse in stratification and instantiation (Post 1)

2. Creation of new strata through relabelling (Post 2)

3. Methodological and social factors enabling proliferation (Post 3)

The series as a whole foregrounds the importance of conceptual integrity, the precise understanding of symbolic abstraction, and the relational dynamics of scholarly communities in shaping theoretical outcomes.