Systemic Functional Linguistics

2.4.2

Systemic Functional Linguistics

The theory of language used as a basis here is the Systemic Functional Lin- guistics (SFL; Halliday 1985a, 1985b; Halliday & Hasan 1989). SFL treats language use as being inherently context-dependent, giving rise to registers, i.e., patterns of language according to use in context. Hence, register is de- fined in SFL as “what you are speaking at the time, depending on what you are doing and the nature of the activity in which language is functioning.” (Halliday & Hasan 1989: 41). SFL is considered with form and function of language as well as the role of context in human communication, thereby providing an analytical framework for lexical and grammatical qualitative and quantitative analysis of linguistic features of language variation.

2.4. Register analysis

A characteristic of the approach we are adopting here, that of sys- temic theory, is that it is comprehensive: it is concerned with lan- guage in its entirety, so that whatever is said about one aspect is to be understood always with reference to the total picture.

(Halliday 2004a: 19)

SFL established a multidimensional model for the description of lan- guages and its architecture evolved continuously since 1970s (e.g., Halliday 1959, 1985a; Halliday & Hasan 1989; Halliday & Matthiessen 2006; Martin 1992a; cf. Matthiessen 2007 for a survey on the historical development of SFL). Currently, SFL’s multidimensional model follows the parameters of stratification, metafunction and instantiation (Halliday 2004a; Martin 2007; Teich 2003). The first parameter, stratification, means that language is “a complex semiotic system, having various levels, or strata” (Halliday 2004a: 24). According to Martin (1992a), SFL distinguishes between the strata of phonology, lexicogrammar, semantics, register, and more recently, genre, and ideology. Initially, there was only the concept of register and there was no need for genre or ideology in the SFL model. Both were added later on by Martin (1992a) (cf. Halliday 1978; Halliday & Hasan 1976, 1989). Figure 2.2 shows the strata of language as in SFL’s model through “the metaphor of concentric circles” (Martin 1992a: 496), by which the larger circles recon- textualize the smaller ones and their sizes indicate that each strata becomes a larger unit, from phonology to ideology. This means that at the strata of phonology, the focus of analysis is on syllables and phonemes, at the strata of lexicogrammar it lays on the clause, and at the semantic strata the fo- cus of analysis lays on paragraphs. Additionally, the focus at the level of register lays on “a stage in a transaction”, at the level of genre on whole texts, and at the level of ideology on “discourses manifested across a range of texts” (Martin 1992a: 496).

The second parameter of SFL’s multidimensional model, metafunction, relies on the multifunctional nature of language, thereby distinguishing three functions or meanings: the ideational, the interpersonal and the tex- tual. Ideational, the first metafunction that is further classified into logical and experiential, is related to the construction of institutional activity, i.e., to the construction of human experience (Halliday 2004a; Martin 2009). The ideational metafunction is linguistically realized in the field of dis- course, which refers to what is happening, i.e., to the nature of the action taking place in the discourse. The parameter of field characterizes texts in terms of their domain-specificity, as described in terms of lexis, special- ized terminology, etc. The second metafunction, interpersonal, is related

2.4. Register analysis

Figure 2.2: Stratification: Language & its semiotic environment (adapted from Martin 1992a: 496)

to the negotiation occurring in the social action. The interpersonal meta- function is linguistically realized in the tenor of discourse, characterizing texts in terms of the interaction between the participants involved in the discourse situation, e.g., expert-to-expert for abstracts and RAs (Martin & Rose 2007). Finally, the third metafunction, is called textual. It reflects how information flows and creates cohesion and continuity within discourse (Halliday 2004a). Moreover, it is also linguistically realized in the mode of discourse, i.e., in the symbolic organization of discourse. The parameter of mode refers to the realization of the communication process in terms of channel and medium. For abstracts and RAs, for example, the channel is indirect, i.e., non-face-to-face communication, and the medium used in the communication is written-to-be-read (Halliday & Hasan 1989). Taken together, the parameters field, tenor, and mode of discourse constitute the register of a discourse. In other words, register refers to “the semiotic sys- tem constituted by the contextual variables field, tenor, and mode” (Martin 1992a: 502). Hence, different registers are to be characterized by different configurations of this three parameters. Figure 2.3 shows the metafunc-

2.4. Register analysis

Figure 2.3: Metafunctions in relation to register variables (field, tenor, and mode) and genre (adapted from Martin (1992a, 2007, 2009))

tions in relation to register variables (field, tenor, and mode) and genre. According to SFL, genre is a social process. The goals of given text are to be defined in terms of systems of social processes at the level of genre, and the register variables field, tenor, and mode work together to achieve such a text goal.

For us a genre is a staged, goal-oriented social process. Social because we participate in genres with other people; goal-oriented because we use genres to get things done; staged because it usually takes us a

few steps to reach our goals. (Martin & Rose 2007: 8)

Martin (1992a, 1993) argues that since genres are social processes and social processes interact to each other, thereby evolving, a superordinate level to genre in the semantic system is needed: ideology (cf. Figure 2.2). “Viewed synoptically, ideology is the system of coding orientations constituting a culture; [. . . ] dynamically it is concerned with the redistribution of power