Scarica SFL Fundamentals: Analyzing Language as Social Semiotic - Prof. Luporini e più Appunti in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity!
LINGUISTICA INGLESE 3
REVIEWING SFL FUNDAMENTALS
SFL AND THE NOTION OF LANGUAGE AS 'SOCIAL SEMIOTIC'
Language as social semiotic = the title of an important book by Halliday (1978) "The social interpretation of language and meaning" Semiotic or semiotics = a theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificial and natural languages (Merriam Webster) "generative approaches take linguistics towards biology; functional grammar takes it towards sociology: the systematic study of relevant features in the culture and society that form the context in which language is used, and which are at the same time constructed by the way in which language is used" (Thompson 2014: 11). THE SOCIAL SYSTEM AS SOCIAL SEMIOTIC SFL interprets the entire social system as a social semiotic: a system of meanings constituting the "reality of the culture" (Halliday 1978: 123) Culture too can be defined as a global social semiotic system = a global, social system of meanings The social system shapes the culture CULTURE AS SOCIAL SEMIOTIC Another social semiotic system, all-embracing An integrated body of the total set of meanings available to any ‘discourse community’ This is what we call a community's total meaning potential: what members of that community 'can mean' - linked to the notion of choice in SFL A community, on the basis of culture and the social system shaping it, will privilege certain meanings over others. As speakers/ writers, we can choose from this extremely vast set of meanings freely... but always (willing or not) taking into account various kinds of constraints, determined by the culture, the situation type, other cotextual choices made previously... MORE ON THE NOTION OF MEANING POTENTIAL Full meaning potential includes various ways of being and behaving:
doing: everyday dress, going out, family relations, how we behave at work etc... thinking saying and meaning But meaning is not always linguistically performed: Language is only one of the semiotic systems making up culture and these various semiotic systems are also part of the social system that shapes that culture To study the social system forming our culture from a linguistic viewpoint, we examine the language of the texts it produces. THE SOCIAL SYSTEM – CULTURE – TEXT CONNECTION RECALL: THE 'TWO' CONTEXTS OF SFL Context of Culture = the all-embracing set of beliefs, value systems etc. forming the background of all social exchanges of meanings Context of Situation = the 'here and now', having to do with the social activity being performed and the subject matter (Field), the social and discourse roles of the participants (Tenor) and the role of language (Mode) These two Contexts tend to 'shape' and, in turn, to be 'shaped' by texts. The notions of Context of Situation and Culture were first theorised by an anthropologist: Bronislaw Malinowski (1923 & 1935), then taken up by Firth & Halliday in their socially-oriented linguistic theories. THE CONTEXT - TEXT CONNECTION
A text is a consistent semantic unit: meanings are encoded and expressed in signs (phonic, graphic, visual) having a connection with their context and being characterised by consistency (the different parts 'hang together')
- TEXT AS PROCESS AND PRODUCT Text as process : focus is on the ongoing choices made by speakers in making meanings Text as product : focus is on the 'frozen' output of speaker choices, the result of the process
- TEXT AS INTERACTION In SFL/ FG, a text also needs to be considered as an interaction: a social exchange of meanings Cf. what we said above about language as social semiotic and the text-context connection Texts are influenced by their contexts, but they can also, in turn, impact on/ change the contexts In other words, a text is both the result and the creator of a context (cf. the quote from Thompson in slide 3 above): another cyclical process
- TEXT AS MULTIPLE CODING SYSTEM A text can be analysed at different, interrelated levels (strata), as a multiple coding system: ANOTHER VIEW OF THE REALISATION CYCLE, OR STRATIFICATION TIME-OUT: TERMINOLOGY REALISATION VS. INSTANTIATION
When we theorise the relationship between strata, eg, what happens to meanings in ‘becoming’ wordings, we talk about REALISATION When we analyse a concrete specific case (= instance) of speaker choice in text, we’re talking about INSTANTIATION Example of the distinction: Offers can be realised by various Moods. In «I’ll do it!», the offer has been instantiated by the speaker with the indicative: declarative. HASAN ON CONTEXT Ruqaiya Hasan theorised the notion of relevant context (1973): the context that leaves its traces in the text, which is especially ‘illuminated’ in/by the language of a particular text. Relatedly, she proposed seeing the total set of situational features (Field, Tenor and Mode) as one single configuration The name she gave to this was Contextual Configuration (CC) the sum, or combination, of the relevant contextual variables of a specific context of situation, seen as one sole configuration We will be using this notion in our analyses of texts/ registers in this course THE NOTION OF REGISTER WHAT IS A REGISTER, OR TEXT-TYPE, OR FUNCTIONAL VARIETY OF TEXT? RECALL the system of a language = its total ‘meaning potential’, ie, what it is possible to say/ mean Notion of choice in text-making What is it that determines the wordings we choose? What we need to do with them, within a specific Contextual Configuration (CC), which is in turn operating within a specific Context of Culture Notion of Language as purpose-ful
o Very informal registers such as face-to-face conversation between friends less ‘standard’ English (ie, dialect, colloquial slang/jargon etc…) WHAT IS AN ANTILANGUAGE? An extreme case of dialectal differentiation, construing sharp divisions within society Generated by a closed discourse community, or an antisociety o = “a society that is set up within another society as a conscious alternative to it” (Halliday 1978: 164) Examples o "pelting speech" (aka "thieves' cant") in Elizabethan England (reproduced in rogue literature),or the "Grypser(k)a" spoken by the subculture of Polish prisons and reform schools (Halliday 1978) MORE ON REGISTER Different combinations of contextual variables (Field, Tenor and Mode) will always result in differences in the lexicogrammar NB: the notion of register contractsthe notion of meaning potential Meaning potential is ultimately limitedto the range of options that belong to a specific situation type (Halliday 1978: 109) Thompson: “certain contexts typically obligecertain meanings and wordings to be made” (2014: 39) And even a slight fine-tuning to any relevant contextualvariable in a CC will make a difference to the concrete textbeing produced EXAMPLE ring….Hello? Good morning. Could you tell me the times of the film showings this evening, please? You guys went to that new movie at the Odeon last night, no? Any good? What time’s it on? Which contextual variable(s) in particular is/ are different in these texts? CONTEXT OF SITUATION: REVIEW When we focus on the CC presumably activating wordings/ meanings, we identify: Field: what’s going on?
- Nature of the ongoing social activity
- Subject matter Tenor: who’s taking part? Who are the Speaker(s) & Addressee(s)? What are their social and discourse roles? What attitude do they take towards each other and towards what they are saying? Mode: what’s the role of language? Is the process of text creation being shared (cf. monologue/ dialogue)? Is language being used spontaneously, in a prepared way, or ‘both’ (semi-prepared)? What is the text’s channel (phonic, graphic, a mixture)? Is language basically constitutive or merely ancillary to an activity? (more about this in due course) How is the text organized? Ie, what is its rhetorical/ discourse, structure/ staging? ring….Hello? Good morning. Could you tell me the times of the film showings this evening, please? FIELD Social activity: phone call to get information, request for info Subject matter: times of film showings TENOR Social roles of Speaker and Addressee: Speaker = potential customer; Addressee = cinema employee Discourse roles of Speaker and Addressee: Speaker = asking for info; Addressee = none (in text as we have it) Attitude towards each other: formal & cordial MODE Text creation: potentially shared (the text does not include the employee’s answer but we presume there will be one) Spontaneous, prepared, semi-prepared? semi-prepared Channel:
WHICH VARIABLE(S) IS/ ARE RELEVANTLY DIFFERENT IN THE 2 TEXTS?
So Addressee status = ++vital to the differences between the texts Though these differences also impact on Mode, ie, they oblige the choice for: pre-scripted formula for polite requests for info (in text 1) vs.features of ‘face- to-face spontaneous talk’ (in text 2) REGISTER ‘FAMILIES’ But the Fields of the 2 texts are almost identical: Nature of ongoing social activity: making an enquiry/ asking for info (register: enquiry/consultation) Subject matter: movie showings… In this sense, the texts belong to the same register Now, the entire range of such partially ‘divergent’ text-types constitutes a single register family In fact, the study of register is the study, on one hand, of the regularities within these ‘families’, And, on the other, of their divergences, especially from typical features of other ‘families’ (cf. Hasan 2014: 10) N.B. Miller and Johnson (e.g. 2013) refer to features of a register that we may consider to be typical as "register-idiosyncratic", thus replacing the less precise term 'register-specific' REGISTER OVERLAPS = the norm An example is the 2nd text above, where the enquiry/consultation is + +informal and so, predictably, also constructs a ‘sharing’ face-to-face conversation, however brief – which is, technically, another register
REGISTER HYBRIDITY
Hybridity = the quality of being heterogeneous in origin or composition (Merriam Webster), mixing two or more different features (Oxford) Matthiessen (2015a: 34): the phenomenon of hybridity of texts-types has been enhanced by technological developments such as the World Wide Web these have, among other things, radically transformed the nature of ‘channel’ within Mode See Matthiessen’s Registerial cartography project at Hong Kong Polytechnic university: Aiming to identify/ describe features of prototypical register types and sub- types Thus also bringing to light the phenomenon of register hybridisation (features of different registers are mixed in a given text, which can thus be said to belong to more than one register at the same time) [Stop & Check su virtuale + 1 review] INTERTEXTUALITY, CONTRATEXTUALITY AND HETEROGLOSSIA WHAT IS INTERTEXTUALITY? In literary and philological circles, intertextuality = ‘allusion’ ‘Weak’ intertextuality = a mere borrowing of words verbatim from other texts ‘Strong’ intertextuality (Hatim and Mason 1990: 120-137 ): Intertextuality that “activates knowledge and belief systems well beyond the text itself” (1990: 124) How so? E.g., by modifying, manipulating the source quotation, thus altering and/or adding to its original meaning potential Typically, texts having a persuasive aim make use of both ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ intertextual connections, to create ‘bonding’ with the audience sharing the same reservoir. REPERTOIRE & RESERVOIR Two notions that were put forward by sociologist Basil Bernstein (1996/2000) Repertoire (= individual subjectivity)
What are the grammatical participants and their roles? CARRIER – the winter of our discontent ATTRIBUTE – glorious summer INITIATOR/ AGENT (ATTRIBUTOR) – this son of York – explicitly construed as responsible for the process In King’s text : “This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality” How many clauses are there? 2 clauses What is the Process type in the main clause? Material (will not pass) Who or what is the Doer of this process? This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent What is the Process type in the dependent clause ("until...")? Existential (there is) Who or what is the Existent in this process? An invigorating autumn [of freedom and equality] While in Shakespeare we have a causative Process explicitly construing someone (the son/sun of York, Edward IV) as responsible for the positive action being described, in King there is an ‘impersonal’ material Process with the summer as Actor. The secondary clause (until… equality) adds a temporal/ conditional element that is not present in Shakespeare, with the "autumn of freedom and equality" explicitly construed as Existent. The seasons also change: in Shakespeare, Carrier = winter, in King, Actor = summer: an instance of exophoric reference to the Context of Situation (August 1963). INTERPERSONAL MEANINGS: FOCUS ON APPRAISAL In Shakespeare’s text : “Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son [or sun] of York…” Which words/expressions enact attitudinal meanings? Discontent, glorious, but also (implicitly: invoked) winter and summer Positive (+ve) or negative (-ve)? Discontent, winter = -ve; glorious, summer = +ve And what is/are the Appraisal system(s) involved? Discontent = Affect; glorious, summer, winter = Appreciation Obviously, summer and winter are also metaphorical
There is also invoked +ve Judgement of the son [sun] of York, Edward IV In King’s text : “This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality” Which words/expressions enact attitudinal meanings? Sweltering summer, legitimate discontent, invigorating autumn; freedom and equality Positive (+ve) or (-ve)? Sweltering summer =-ve; Legitimate discontent = overall –ve, but legitimate is +ve (wrt the Black people who are rightly unhappy); invigorating autumn = +ve Freedom and equality = +ve And what is/are the Appraisal system(s) involved? Affect (discontent), Appreciation (sweltering summer, invigorating autumn) and Judgement (legitimate, freedom, equality) Again, the seasons change wrt to Shaskespeare (summer/ autumn vs. winter/ summer) and are also metaphorical. In terms of Appraisal, King’s text is more complex than Shakespeare’s: the seasons are described through adjectives referring, also metaphorically, to different stages of the Black people’s struggle (sweltering summer, invigorating autumn). The fact that King makes reference to an invigorating autumn (instead of winter) may imply that the season of freedom and equality is very close (autumn comes right after summer), thus conveying an optimistic view. As we noted before, King is also making reference to the Context of Situation: this speech was delivered in August 1963. YET ANOTHER DEFINITION: THE WIDER SFL NOTION OF INTERTEXTUALITY The meaning of a text depends directly on the kinds of connections made in a particular [discourse] community between it and other texts (Lemke 1995: 85). Synchronically, each text establishes links with the contemporary meaning-making practices of any given discourse community, and at the same time, Diachronically, it establishes connections with a set of texts, constructed over time, with which we can say it shares meanings And intertextuality can clearly work across registers as well: e.g., MLK Jr.’s speeches/ sermons linking to passages from the Bible, or from Shakespeare as we saw before INTERTEXTUALITY AND CONTRATEXTUALITY
BUT, FOR BAKHTIN, ‘TRUE’ HETEROGLOSSIA
o Is the text’s ‘ideal’ recognition of a ‘polyphony’ of different, even conflicting voices in society o so, in terms of the ENGAGEMENT SYTEM, +++ Expansion o but Heteroglossia, for Bakhtin, has 2 opposing ‘forces’, and he sees them as being always in tension, constantly in conflict:
- the ‘centripetal’ force (for Bakhtin, not good!), and
- the ‘centrifugal’ one (much better!) BAKHTIN’S TWO FORCES OF HETEROGLOSSIA
MORE CONNECTIONS: A PROPOSAL
o We bring together, both conceptually and theoretically: Intertextuality with Bakhtin’s centripetal force and Contratextuality with his centrifugal one o Why? o Because, as we’ve defined them
- both intertextuality and the centripetal force tend to work towards the legitimation of the ideological status quo, towards hegemony, while
- both contratextuality and the centrifugal force are instruments for asserting the counter-cultural, or at least for privileging multicultural perspectives, to some degree anyway THE CLOSED-OPEN REGISTER CONTINUM REGISTER AND TEXT PREDICTABILITY: ‘OPEN’ VS ‘CLOSED’ REGISTERS = ‘open’/ ‘closed’ to different ways of saying/ meaning Knowing a register’s typical CC… the easier it is to predict wordings/ meanings → the more ‘closed’ a register is said to be the harder it is to predict wordings/ meanings → the more ‘open’ a register is said to be N.B. Predictability always also depends on the extent to which one (the ‘predictor’) is familiar with the register itself! A cline/continuum: CLOSED ……………….…..………………….… OPEN A few notes: NO register can be considered totally open: some predictability, if only very minor, will always be involved Conversely, NO register can be said to be totally closed either: speakers may choose to ignore register-idiosyncratic ways of saying/meaning and modify them
Eg, our lessons: “Hello everyone, today we are going to introduce a new topic, we’re going to talk about more closed and more open registers, but first let us revise the notions of intertextuality and contratextuality, which we discussed last time…” Now, these are similar to the ancillary vs. constitutive distinction ANCILLARY VS. CONSTITUTIVE ROLE OF LANGUAGE Language as action = language is fundamentally ancillary to the ongoing activity: i.e. language supports the main activity being carried out, but is not as important Language as reflection = language is constitutive of the ongoing social activity: i.e. language is an essential part of the activity being carried out, which would not exist without it
- SLIGHTLY LESS CLOSED REGISTERS Generally speaking, slightly less predictable: there is slightly more room for making alternative wordings/meanings. Among these we find: Recipes Menus Greeting cards N.B.: Even within the same register, there can be differences in the complexity and conventional/ unconventional nature of the textual instance, which also impact on predictability. For instance: Recipes - Bloody Mary cocktail vs. Mont Blanc cake; Menus - Fast food restaurant (eg Mc Donald’s) vs. ‘slow food’ restaurant. Also, Mc Donald’s menu today is less predictable than it was back in the 1960s, where it included just a few options; Greeting cards : traditional (Merry Christmas, Happy Birthday) vs. unconventional ones such as Happy Divorce cards, available nowadays. And there are whole companies/ websites dedicated just to greeting cards, with hundreds of pictures and messages to choose from (e.g., Hallmark) And, as usual, ultimately it all depends also on the predictor’s familiarity with the text-type being considered.
- SLIGHTLY MORE OPEN REGISTERS Still less predictability, more variation. Among these we find: Technical instructions Legal documents
Didactic discourse Again, with differences in the complexity of the textual instance, and so also in predictability. For instance, instructions to assemble a small piece of furniture will usually be quite short and simple, and we can predict that they will include pictures in a given (sequential) order. But, e.g., instructions to set up an Apple Watch will probably be more complex; therefore, it will probably be harder to predict the wordings therein. But again, predictability, in the final analysis, is a question of familiarity with the text-type.
- FURTHER TOWARDS THE ‘OPEN’ SIDE Here, where predictability keeps decreasing in general, we find: Registers having a ‘persuasive’ aim (e.g. political discourse, advertising) SOME PASSAGES ARE MORE ‘PREDICTABLE’ (BECAUSE MORE ‘CONVENTIONAL’), OTHERS ARE LESS PREDICTABLE AND LESS ‘CONVENTIONAL’, TOO. WHICH ONES? Our American ancestors sailed across the perilous ocean to build a new life on a new continent. They braved the freezing winters, crossed the raging rivers, scaled the rocky peaks, trekked the dangerous forests, and worked from dawn till dusk. These pioneers didn’t have money. They didn’t have fame. But they had each other. They loved their families, they loved their country, and they loved their God. When opportunity beckoned, they picked up their bibles, packed up their belongings, climbed into their covered wagons, and set out West for the next adventure. Ranchers and miners, cowboys and sheriffs, farmers and settlers. They pressed on past the Mississippi to stake a claim in the wild frontier. Legends were born. Wyatt Earp, Annie Oakley, Davy Crockett, and Buffalo Bill. Americans built their beautiful homesteads on the open range. Soon, they had churches and communities, then towns, and with time, great centers of industry and commerce. That is who they were. Americans build their future, we don’t tear down our past. We are the nation that won a revolution, toppled tyranny and fascism, and delivered millions into freedom. We laid down the railroads, built the great ships, raised up the skyscrapers, revolutionized industry, and sparked a new age of scientific discovery. We set the trends in art and music, radio and film, sport and literature. And we did it with style and confidence and flair because that is who we are. […] For America, nothing is impossible. Over the next four years, we will prove worthy of this magnificent legacy. We will reach stunning new heights, and we will show the world that for America there is a dream, and it is not beyond your
