CONTEXT OF SITUATION: REGISTER

Systemic linguists are interested in exploring just how context gets into text. In transcribing the daily life and events of the Trobriand Islanders, Malinowski found that it was impossible to make sense of literal, or word for word translation from their language into English. In part Malinowski argued that this indicated the need for the researcher to understand the cultural context in which the language was being used:

the study of any language, spoken by a people who live under conditions different from our own and possess a different culture, must be carried out in conjunction with the study of their culture and their environment (1946: 306).

Malinowksi claimed that language only becomes intelligible when it is placed within its context of situation.

Malinowksi wanted to capture the fact that the situation in which words are uttered “can never be passed over as irrelevant to the linguistic expression”, and that “the meaning of any single word is to very high degree dependent on its context” (1946: 307).

In trying to determine what were the significant variables in the context of situation that allowed us to make such prediction is, Firth suggested the following dimension of situations:

a.       The relevant features of participants: persons, personalities.

i.          The verbal action of the participants.

ii.        The non-verbal action of the participants.

b.      The relevant objects.

c.       The effect of the verbal action.

(1950/ 57: 182)

Halliday suggested that three aspects in any situation that have linguistic consequences:

-          Field    : what the language is being used to talk about;

-          Mode  : the role language is playing in the interaction; and

-          Tenor  : the role relationship between the interactants.

There is a process named by nominalization: turning things that are not normally nouns into nouns, with consequences for other parts of sentences. For example the word to hand in, to get sick become submission, illness, and conjunction or logical connectives because becomes reason.

Nominalization is one type of what Halliday identifies as grammatical metaphor, situations where meanings typically (congruently) realized by one type of language pattern get realized by other less typical (incongruent) linguistics choices.

In identifying the three aspects of meaning, they are the experiential, the interpersonal and textual, Halliday is suggesting that all of we uses we make of language (which are limitless and changing), language is designing to fulfill three main functions. They are a function for relating experience, a function for creating interpersonal relationship and a function for organizing information. Halliday suggests that these types of meaning can be related both “up-wards” (to context) and “downwards” (to lexico-grammar). The upwards link is that each register variable can be associated with one of these types of meanings. Thus, field is expressed through patterns of experiential meaning in text, mode is expressed through textual meaning, and tenor through interpersonal meaning. The downwards link is that we “see” the types of meanings being realized through the associated lexico-grammatical patterns. Thus, putting this all together, Halliday claims that:

-          The field of text can be associated with the realization of experiential meanings; these experiential meanings are realized through the Transitivity patterns of the grammar.

-          The mode of the text can be associated with the realization of textual meanings; these textual meanings are realized through the Theme patterns of the grammar.

-          The tenor of the text can be associated with the realization of interpersonal meanings; these interpersonal meanings are realized through the Mood patterns of the grammar.

    Reference:

Eggins, Suzzanne, 1994, An Introduction to systemic Functional Lingustics.Printer Publisher Ltd. United Kingdom. P: 49-80.