A Systemic Functional Linguistics-Based Literature Review Approach to Analyzing Material Processes, Textual Metafunctions, and Argumentation Features

Abstract

This study employs a Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)-based 
literature review approach to analyze how material processes, textual 
metafunctions, and argumentation features shape meaning-making 
across academic, student, and corporate discourse. Findings reveal that 
material processes play a central role in representing actions and events, 
whether in student essays, corporate annual reports, or pedagogical 
research, highlighting how texts construct activity, progress, and 
empirical procedures. Textual metafunctions, particularly theme
rheme organization and cohesive devices, structure information flow 
and influence the coherence of arguments. Argumentation features 
show varied levels of sophistication: student writing reflects limited 
argumentative control, corporate discourse uses persuasive and 
ideologically driven strategies, and academic studies demonstrate 
balanced reasoning. Across contexts, linguistic choices shape clarity, 
coherence, and persuasive power. The analysis underscores SFL’s 
value as an analytical framework for understanding how discourse 
constructs knowledge, frames ideology, and supports rhetorical goals, 
while also identifying areas where writers require further development 
in thematic progression and argumentation.