<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffcc" text="#000099">
<font face="Palatino Linotype"><br>
Thanks! Federico, for your detailed explanation of the use(s) of
'genre' and 'register' in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and the
differences between the classical approach (Halliday, et al.) and that
of the "Sydney School" (Martin, et al.). <br>
<br>
It is good to have this debate on this list, because many people
working in CDA have been inspired by SFL, so it is important to assess
what SFL has to offer CDA and discourse studies in general.<br>
<br>
I am sure Jim Martin himself may in some stage have something to say
about this. <br>
<br>
Not being an expert in SFL, I am of course unable to make a detailed
judgment about the various SFL approaches to 'genre' and 'register',
but my concern, not only as this list convenor but also as an editor of
several journals in discourse studies and of introductory books, are
the contributions of various schools of discourse studies (of which SFL
is no doubt one of the most prominent) to the whole field. One of my
many roles, in this case, is also to stress the importance of clarity,
transparency, and accessibility for students and scholars from
neighboring disciplines. <br>
<br>
Whatever the immense contributions of SFL to linguistics and discourse
studies, I continuously have problems with the relative lack of clarity
and accessibility of much SF jargon, which is quite different from
other linguistic schools. Now, each school, sect and approach has its
own technical terms, and each school has lot of various definitions of
terms, but this is especially the case for SFL. <br>
<br>
I have shown in great detail, in a separate chapter of my new book on
context, that and how this is the case for the notion of context. For
those interested, here is an advance version of that chapter, showing
why and how this notion in SFL is extremely vague, and in my view
theoretically totally misguided. Some other critical remarks on SFL are
also made in that chapter, such as the prevalent anti-cognitivism of
(most of) SFL. Those who want some more substance and arguments to what
I say below, are referred to that (very) critical chapter - critical,
because for a variety of reasons, such as internal solidarity, etc.
such critique is difficult withing SFL itself, also because it is about
fundamental SF notions, and someone had to say it one day, and although
I seldom engage in systematic critique of special schools in
linguistics and discourse analysis, this one was I think necessary
given the role of SFL in CDA. <br>
<br>
The anti-cognitivism of SFL is one of the explanations why in a theory
of genre, classical SFL has no place for goals, purposes or intentions
- which Federico points out are accepted by Jim Martin, and which in my
view are crucial in any kind of action, interaction or social practice
definition of genres: as already traditional philosophy of action has
shown, and contemporary cognitive science makes explicit: actions are
bodily events that are more or less consciously intended (and as such
understood), and executed to reach specific goals (which agents
represent in episodic memory, namely as mental models). In my view
this is standard cognitive theory, and any multidisciplinary approach
to discourse and hence to genre should include such a dimension. But,
this is only <i>one</i> of the dimensions of the context - because we
also need the dimension of the participants and their social roles
(again, as represented by the participants themselves, obvioiusly, and
not by the analyst, because it is the <i>subjective definition of the
situation by the participants</i> that defines the context). A genre
definition of (say) parliamentary debates without mentioning MPs is
obviously incomplete. <br>
<br>
Also, famous SF notions such as <i>field, mode </i>and <i>tenor</i>
(also mentioned by Federico) have no precise meaning at all, and it is
really surprising, to put it mildly, how they have survived decades of
linguistic research in SFL. <br>
<br>
I am afraid that what I have written on context also applies to some of
the other notions dealt with in SFL, and Federico's rendering of
different SF positions on genre and egister again seems to confirm my
point: the notions are so vague, and each person has another, equally
vague definition -- say of register (and I cite Federico's citations,
assuming they are correct):<br>
<br>
</font><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText"
style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" lang="EN-GB"><font
face="Times New Roman">- “A configuration of
meanings that are typically associated with a particular situational
configuration of field, mode and tenor” (Halliday & Hasan,
1985:38-9), <br>
<br>
</font></span><font face="Palatino Linotype">Apart from the problematic
nature of the notions <i>field</i>, <i>mode</i> and <i>tenor</i>
(see my attached article), the expression "a configuration of meaning"
is much too general and vague for comfort. Does this mean that register
is defined (only) in <i>semantic </i>terms? What is the nature of
such a configuration? Are there no grammatical (syntactic, lexical)
dimensions involved in register? <br>
</font><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"
lang="EN-GB"><font face="Times New Roman"><br>
“the configuration of semantic resources that the member of
the culture associates with a situation type. It is the meaning
potential that is accessible in a given social context” (Halliday
1978:111)<br>
<br>
</font></span><font face="Palatino Linotype">So, registers are
semantic!? But "configuration of semantic resources" - as well as the
well-known but equally vague notion of "meaning potential" used in SFL,
do not tell me much about what registers are. What kind of 'semantic
resources'? Propositional structures? Entailments? Presuppositions? <br>
<br>
But THAT is strange, because what seems to define different practices,
contexts, styles, etc. (like formal and informal, etc.), is precisely
NOT the meaning of discourse, but its forms, formats, etc. That is, we
may communicate (display, express, etc.) more or less the 'same'
meaning (propositions, etc.) in different contexts, but need to do this
in different forms or formats, and it is <i>that</i> what we usually
understand by register (see also Biber & Finegan). Thus, telling
the "same" story (say about a robbery) in a news article, in the police
station and to friends in conversation may have more or less the same
meaning (propositions, event model, etc) but the registers - as
required by the context - are different -- and so are the genres (which
need much more than just a definition of register). In other words, a
"semantic" definition of register is very strange.<br>
<br>
But let is not despair... As usual in SF there are many ways to define
the 'same' (?) notion:<br>
</font><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"
lang="EN-GB"><font face="Times New Roman"><br>
, “the patterns of instantiation of the overall system
associated with a given type of context” and “ways of using language in
different contexts” (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004:27) <br>
<br>
</font></span><font face="Palatino Linotype">But now, there is no
reference to semantics or meaning but to an even vaguer notion
"patterns of instantiation of the overall system". Does this include
phonology, syntax, lexicon, semantics, etc. (not to speak of
pragmatics, etc. because most of classical SFL never discovered that
part of linguistics). Is this way of formulating not more or less the
same as saying that register is the way language is used in each
context -- as indeed the second quote confirms? Fine, that is slightly
more accessible, but still much too vague and too general. And, this
is not even the beginning of a theory of register, because one needs to
be clear about how language can vary with context in the first place
(and what does not - like most of syntax, which is invariant in any
context, and hence by definition not contextually sensitive and hence
not part of register). <br>
<br>
I may continue for nearly all quotations given by Federico. Generally,
I think they are intolerably vague, confused, ambiguous, contradictory
or theoretically incorrect. If they are accessible at all. Take the
last paragraph:<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Times New
Roman"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" lang="EN-GB">(...)
the main difference between both perspectives is that the </span><st1:place><st1:placetype><span
style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" lang="EN-GB">school</span></st1:placetype><span
style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" lang="EN-GB"> of </span><st1:placename><span
style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" lang="EN-GB">Sydney</span></st1:placename></st1:place><span
style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" lang="EN-GB">
–Martin in particular– claims that the Systemic-Functional model must
include a set of specifications that go beyond situational context. In
short, this model will be able to distinguish between a level of
typical meaning potential associated to local context (i.e., register)
and a level of typical meaning potential associated to a wider –global–
context (i.e., genre). Both levels or strata are systematically
related: genre options are realized in register options, which are also
realized in lower strata. Halliday would argue that the genre level is
just unnecessary, while Martin claims that this distinction has proved
useful for a number of reasons (cf. Martin 1992:505-7).</span></font><br>
<font face="Palatino Linotype"><br>
</font><font face="Palatino Linotype">I guess this is comprehensible
for SF linguists, but I bet most of my students (and I myself) not
schooled in this jargon have difficulty understanding what all this is
about. Do we know, after this, what "genre" and and "register" mean
exactly in the different schools of SFL? I am afraid I don't, and I
honestly tried, because I celebrate diversity of approaches in
discourse studies. But I also celebrate clarity of terminology and
accessibility.<br>
<br>
The questions remain: What do we teach our students? How do we describe
genres? Is the notion of 'register' useful at all? If so, how should it
be used to describe genres? </font><font face="Palatino Linotype">How
is it different from 'style' (which also varies with context)? </font><font
face="Palatino Linotype">And how is it related to the (much more
explicit) usage in other approaches, e.g. in quantitative and
sociolinguistics (Biber & Finegan, etc.). <br>
<br>
Teun<br>
<br>
________________________________________<br>
<br>
Teun A. van Dijk<br>
Universitat Pompeu Fabra<br>
Dept. de Traducció i Filologia<br>
Rambla 30<br>
08002 Barcelona<br>
<br>
E-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:teun@discourses.org">teun@discourses.org</a><br>
Internet: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.discourses.org">www.discourses.org</a><br>
<br>
</font><font face="Palatino Linotype"><br>
</font><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"
lang="EN-GB"><font face="Times New Roman"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
resemble
Martin’s definitions of genre (“a staged, goal-oriented social process
realised through register” (Martin, 1984), “social purposes achieved by
language use” (Ventola 1995:7) or “interactional processes that unfold
in recognizable stages” (Ventola 1995:8). Both positions relate to a
social and functional conception of language use in context and typical
configurations of language options associated with typical contexts,
although they both lack, for instance, anthropological and cognitive
parameters. In fact, both positions provide similar examples of what a
register or genre is and both remind of Bakhtin’s work, although
Bakhtin is more clearly adopted as a reference figure in Martin’s
papers. The difference lies somewhere else.</font></span></div>
<br>
<font face="Palatino Linotype"><br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>