1887
image of Context of situation and the role of language
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

‘Role’ is typically defined according to the part and/or function that something or someone contributes to a situation. This two-fold perspective is also inherent in discussions of the role of language: the ‘amount’ of language that is involved in a situation and the ‘function’ of language in a situation, with both perspectives relating to the non-linguistic systems that may be involved in the conduct of the situation relative to language. It is the latter of these perspectives, however, that has typically received most attention in discourse analysis, with the former (the ‘amount’) being left implicit and unproblematised. This paper considers the role of language from various discourse analytical perspectives before critically examining the concept within Systemic Functional Linguistics. Using system networks as the representational and analytical platform, the paper redefines ‘role of language’ in contextual Mode as comprised of two sub-systems: and . accounts for the compositional contribution that language makes in a situation; accounts for the way in which language may function in a situation. Using an illustrative dataset, the paper also demonstrates the effectiveness of the systemic approach in accounting for overlapping and differing contextual configurations by showing how features within the configure and how these in turn configure with options in the Field system-network of . These configurations are essentially hypotheses that can be more comprehensively tested through empirical research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20014.bow
2021-04-07
2021-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bartlett, Tom
    2013 I’ll manage the context: Context, environment, and the potential for institutional change. InLise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 342–364.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2016a Multiscalar modelling of context: Some questions raised by the category of mode. InWendy L. Bowcher & Jennifer Y. Liang (eds.), 166–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2016b Phasal dynamism and the unfolding of meaning as text. English Text Construction9(1). 143–164. 10.1075/etc.9.1.08bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.08bar [Google Scholar]
  4. Berry, Margaret
    2016 On describing contexts of situation. InWendy L. Bowcher & Jennifer Y. Liang (eds.), 184–205.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowcher, Wendy L.
    1999 Investigating institutionalisation in context. InMohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 141–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2001 Play-by-play talk on radio: An enquiry into some relations between language and context. Liverpool: University of Liverpool PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2004 Theme and New in play-by-play radio sports commentating. InDavid Banks (ed.), Text and texture, 455–493. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2007 Field and multimodal texts. InRuqaiya Hasan, Christian Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language, 619–646. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013 Material action as choice in field. InLise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 318–341.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2014 Issues in developing unified systems for contextual field and mode. Functions of language21(2). 176–209. 10.1075/fol.21.2.02bow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.2.02bow [Google Scholar]
  11. 2018 The semiotic sense of context vs the material sense of context. Functional Linguistics5(5). doi:  10.1186/s40554‑018‑0055‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-018-0055-y [Google Scholar]
  12. Bowcher, Wendy L. & Jennifer Y. Liang
    (eds.) 2016Society in language, language in society: Essays in honor of Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Palgrave. 10.1057/9781137402868
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137402868 [Google Scholar]
  13. Butt, David G.
    2001 Firth, Halliday and the development of systemic functional theory. InSylvain Auroux, E. F. K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe & Kees Versteegh (eds.), History of the language sciences: An international handbook on the evolution of the study of language from the beginning to the present, 1806–1838. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2004Parameters of context: On establishing the similarities and differences between social processes. Sydney: Macquarie University unpublished mimeo.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2010 The meaning of a network: Applying the linguistics of Hasan, Halliday, and Lamb. Presentation atConnecting Paths: Lamb, Halliday, and Hasan. Guangzhou, China, Sun Yat-sen University, 3rd November.
  16. Cloran, Carmel
    1999 Context, material situation, and text. InMohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 177–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cruse, Alan
    2011Meaning in Language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dijk, Teun A. van
    2008Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511481499
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fairclough, Norman
    1989Language and power. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fontaine, Lise, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady
    (eds.) 2013Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring choice. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139583077
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077 [Google Scholar]
  21. Forceville, Charles
    2014 Relevance theory as model for analysing visual and multimodal communication. InDavid Machin (ed.), Visual Communication, 51–70. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110255492.51
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255492.51 [Google Scholar]
  22. Franks, Rachel
    2016 A true crime tale: Re-imagining Governor Arthur’s proclamation to the Aborigines. M/C Journal18(6). Available online at: journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1036. Accessed29 Sept. 2020. 10.5204/mcj.1036
    https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.1036 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ghadessy, Mohsen
    (ed.) 1999Text and context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.169
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.169 [Google Scholar]
  24. Goodwin, Charles
    2017Co-operative action. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781139016735
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016735 [Google Scholar]
  25. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1985 Part A. InM. A. K. Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan, 3–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2013 The place of dialogue in children’s construction of meaning. InDonna Alvermann, Norman J. Unrau & Robert B. Ruddell (eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 6th edn., 152–163. Newark: International Reading Association. 10.1598/0710.05
    https://doi.org/10.1598/0710.05 [Google Scholar]
  27. Halliday, M. A. K., Angus Macintosh & Peter Strevens
    1964The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longmans.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1985Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hasan, Ruqaiya
    1985 Part B. InM. A. K. Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan, 51–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1999 Speaking with reference to context. InMohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 219–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2009 The place of context in a systemic functional model. InM. A. K. Halliday & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), The continuum companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics, 166–189. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2014 Towards a paradigmatic description of context: Systems, metafunctions and semantics. Functional linguistics1(9). 1–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Heritage, John
    2004 Conversation analysis and institutional talk. InDavid Silverman (ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, 222–245. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Knapp, Mark, Judith Hall & Terrance G. Horgan
    2014Nonverbal communication in human interaction, 8th edn. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kress, Gunther
    2009 What is Mode?InCarey Jewitt (ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis, 54–67. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2014 Design: The rhetorical work of shaping the semiotic world. InArlene Archer & Denise Newfield (eds.), Multimodal approaches to research and pedagogy, 131–152. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen
    2006Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203619728
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203619728 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kuiper, Konraad & Robyn Lewis
    2013 The effect of the broadcast medium on the language of radio and television sports commentary genres: The Rugby Union Lineout. Journal of Sports Media8(2). 31–51. 10.1353/jsm.2013.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/jsm.2013.0012 [Google Scholar]
  39. Levinson, S.
    1992 [1979] Activity types and language. InPaul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work, 66–100. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Martin, J. R.
    1992English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  41. Martinec, Radan & Andrew Salway
    2005 A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media. Visual Communication4(3). 337–371. 10.1177/1470357205055928
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357205055928 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mondada, Lorenza
    2019 Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics145. 47–62. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016 [Google Scholar]
  43. O’Halloran, Kay
    2015 Multimodal digital humanities. InPeter P. Trifonis (ed.), International handbook of semiotics, 389–415. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑9404‑6_18
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_18 [Google Scholar]
  44. Royce, Terry D.
    2007 Intersemiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. InTerry D. Royce & Wendy L. Bowcher (eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse, 63–109. Newark, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Searle, John
    1985Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and cognition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wardhaugh, Ronald
    2006An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Wegener, Rebekah
    2019 What makes a text a text?Functions of Language26(1). 28–34. 10.1075/fol.00013.weg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.00013.weg [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20014.bow
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20014.bow
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error