Do Meaning Systems Construe Themselves into Existence?

Within the SFL-informed relational ontology I use, this question opens onto the very nature of semiotic emergence. Meaning is not something that exists prior to construal; it is construed into being through the semiotic systems that operate within a meaning potential. But does this extend to the systems themselves? Are meaning systems self-originating? Do they, in some sense, construe themselves into being?

The answer depends on how we understand the ontological status of systems, instances, and the process of instantiation.

Reflexive Emergence

Meaning systems emerge as regularities across instances of meaning. They are not given in advance, but inferred retrospectively from recurring patterns in texts. These regularities are construed as networks of options—systems—which can then be used to model and predict future instances. In this sense, the system constrains and is instantiated by texts, and through enough instantiations, we can construe the system.

So yes: the system "emerges" through the acts of construal it makes possible. It is not created ex nihilo, but rather inferred, modelled, and then deployed semiotically. It is instantiated into being.

Construal is not Causal Creation

When we say a system is "construed into existence," we do not mean it causes itself to exist in a metaphysical or material sense. Rather, its semiotic existence is relational: it becomes real for us through acts of construal. A meaning system exists as a potential until someone construes an instance—and in that act, the system is affirmed, structured, and made observable.

This means we are not talking about a vicious circularity but a dynamic interplay:

• Potential gives rise to instance;

• Recurring instances allow us to construe the system;

• The system, once construed, constrains the space of future instances.

From this perspective, it may be useful to distinguish between three complementary planes:

• Potential meaning: experience that has not yet been semiotically structured but is available for transformation;

• Meaning instances: the actualised meanings that are construed in texts or other semiotic forms;

• Meaning potential: the structured system network inferred from and abstracted across those instances.

In this sense, only the instances of meaning are strictly "real" in the sense of being actualised. The meaning system is a semiotic abstraction, a construal of regularities among instances. And potential meaning is the experiential substrate that can be transformed into meaning but is not yet structured as such.

Systems as Hypothetical Constructs

From an SFL perspective, systems like TRANSITIVITY or MOOD are hypothetical constructs. They are abstracted from actual usage and then used to model further usage. They do not exist independently of texts, but neither are they reducible to them. Once institutionalised within a discourse community, these constructs acquire a kind of semiotic reality: they shape what meanings can be meant.

Stratification and Instantiation

The picture becomes richer when we consider stratification alongside instantiation. Semantics as a stratum is construed from recurring patterns in text; it is both instantiated by and abstracted from them. Once construed, it acts back upon future texts by constraining the system of potential meanings. This is not a closed loop but an evolving feedback system between structure and event, between potential and instance.

Conclusion

So do meaning systems construe themselves into existence? In the strictest metaphysical sense, no. But in the semiotic sense, yes: they emerge from acts of construal, and once emergent, they shape further construals. They are self-perpetuating within a semiotic ecology. Meaning systems are not self-originating, but they are self-actualising—through us.