1. Title : Context, register and genre: Implications for language education
2. Author: Débora Figueiredo, Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina Brasil
3 Journal: Número Especial Monográfico Nº 1
4. Publication: Revista Signos 2010
5. Abstract:
This paper explores, from a systemic functional linguistics perspective, the relation among the concepts of ‘context’, ‘register’ (Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Halli-day, 2004) ‘genre’ (Martin, 1992, 1997, 2000) and language education. The reason for exploring these concepts is their connection with two notions that have a direct bear-ing on language teaching/learning: the appropriateness of linguistic forms to achieve specific communicative purposes (linked to the paradigm of analysing language in use) and the relation between text and context. To illustrate and apply the SFL theoreti-cal and analytical resources presented, an exemplar of a reader’s letter published by Newsweek magazine is analysed. It is suggested that a functional perspective on lan-guage teaching/learning helps students build systematic links between contextual and linguistic parameters when using language, a goal which is facilitated by SFL’s view of language as “sets of related choices or options, each of which is called a system” (Painter, 2001: 176). In other words, the notions of register and genre can be used to make students aware of the sociocultural features of the text-type that is being taught and of which linguistic choices are more likely to be made in its textualization, as well as to help teachers “to identify and focus on whatever aspect of language in use the learner needs most help with” (Painter, 2001: 178).
6. Goals:
The aim of this paper is to explore, from the perspective of systemic functional linguistics (SFL), the relation between the concepts of ‘context’, ‘register’ (Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Halliday, 2004) genre (Martin, 1992, 1997, 2000) and language education. The reason for exploring these concepts is their connection with two notions that have a direct bearing on language teaching/learning: the appropriateness of linguistic forms to achieve specific communicative purposes (linked to the paradigm of analysing language in use) and the relation between text and context.
In pedagogical terms, the goal is to present and discuss theoretical and analytical resources produced within a discursive-functional perspective that may be used to ground the work with genres (including the issues of text production and reception), both by EFL/ESL1 teachers and students and by language researchers.
7. Problem:
The problem which is the main reason for exploring these concepts is their connection with two notions that have a direct bearing on language teaching/learning: the appropriateness of linguistic forms to achieve specific communicative purposes (linked to the paradigm of analysing language in use) and the relation between text and context.
8. Theories:
a. Systemic functional linguistics and language education.
Systemic functional linguistics (SFL), developed by Halliday (1978), is both a theory of language and a methodology for analysing texts and their contexts of use. Due to its dual nature, SFL aims to explain how individuals use language and how language is structured for its different usages (Eggins, 1994). By adopting a multifunctional view of language, that is, that language is as it is to accomplish certain social functions, SFL divides the meanings realized by language into three types: ‘ideational’, ‘interpersonal’ and ‘textual’ meanings. According to this per-spective, language is seen as ‘systemic’ because it consists of a set of choice systems, in which each system provides the speaker/writer with a variety of ways to express their intended meaning, and it is ‘functional’ because it serves functional purposes. The functional aspects of language are simultaneously expressed in the three types of meaning mentioned above.
Ideational meanings are related to the way language is used to represent our experiences of the physical, the psychological and the social world. These meanings are realized through the ‘system of transitivity’, which is represented by ‘a process’ (realized by a verbal group), ‘the participants’ involved (realized by nominal groups) and their ‘circunstances’ (usually realized by adverbial groups). ‘Interpersonal meanings’ are realized by the ‘systems of mood’ and ‘modality’. Mood is related to the exchange of information and of goods and services. Modality, on the other hand, is the relationship established between the text’s author and her/his representations
‘Textual meanings’ have to do with the way the text is organized in relation to its context and its message. The clause seen as a message projects textual meanings through the ‘system of Theme/Rheme’, which is related to the message’s point of departure (Theme) and its continuity (Rheme) in the clauses’ syntactic organization. A textual analysis based on the systemic-functional approach points out micro-textual evidence of specific social practices, allowing the discourse analyst, among other things, to uncover the hidden interests of writers/speakers and of their texts. According to Lock (1996), in terms of language education, the systemic functional perspective does not focus on the distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical linguistic forms, but rather on the appropriateness of each lexico-gramatical choice for a particular communicative purpose in a particular social context. As the author points out, “the primary concern [of systemic functional linguistics] is with the functions of structures and their constituents and with their meanings in context” (Lock, 1996: 1). Learning a second or foreign language involves a considerable amount of time and dedication, and the learners expect, as a payoff from their efforts, to develop the ability to communicate effectively with other speakers or writers of the new language. To do so, learners need a grammatical description of the language that goes beyond listing forms and structures and includes a description of the available linguistic resources and of how they are used in social interactions. Systemic functional linguistics is particularly adequate for such a task since it conceives: “The grammar of a language as a resource for making and exchanging meanings. A functional grammar is therefore the kind of grammar most likely to have useful things to say to language learners and teachers” (Lock, 1996: 3).
a.1 The notion of ‘context’ in language teaching/learning
From a systemic point of view, language can only be understood in relation to its environment of use, and this premise is particularly evident in the language classroom, where both spoken and written texts should not be interpreted in isolation from their contexts of production and circulation. According to SFL, the environment of language seen as texts −specific texts and their component parts− is the context of situation, whereas the environment of language seen as a system −its lexical items and grammatical categories− is the context of culture (Halliday, 1978). The main contention in SFL is that the contextual and linguistic elements of a text are in a systemic relationship to one another. Choices in the distinct metafunctions ‘create’ the con-text of a text, at the same time that the register elements activate different areas of semantics and grammar. Halliday (1978) argues for the importance of the context in language education based on the unique role played by language in the learning process, in which language functions as ‘substance’ (learning a language, be it L1 or a foreign language), as ‘instrument’ (learning through language, which applies to all fields of knowledge and to all educational levels), and as ‘object’ (learning about language: grammar, genres, registers, word formation, etc.). In Halliday’s (1978: 1) words: “If the context is theorized in linguistic terms as another stratum in the organization of language itself, this enables us to model its variation and complexity, taking account of the differing situational contexts for different levels and kinds of teaching/learning activities, as well as the processes and the institutions of education and the different cultures within which this are located.”
a.2. The context of situation.
In second/foreign language classes, the issue of context is a particularly complex one, since the general feeling is that, in a classroom, language functions somehow out of its ‘natural’, ‘real’ enviroments of use, such as was the case in traditional methods of language teaching. Before the emergence of communicative approaches to second/foreign language education, traditional textbooks relied on single sentences or even words presented in isolation, out of context. Even the ‘situational approach, developed in the 1950s and 1960s (Hornby, 1954; Frisby, 1957; Pittman, 1963) as a result of an interest of certain linguists in the role of context, and which tried to present texts and activities within recognizable situational settings (e.g. ‘at the post office’, ‘at the airport’, ‘at the restaurant’), made use of ‘ready-made’ sentences, contrary to “the basic notion of [language] functioning in a context of situation” (Halliday, 1978: 10).
However, from a social perspective of language use and language teaching/learning, the main problem with this pre-communicative approach was the fact that it equated context with setting. As Halliday (1978: 10) points out, “the context of situation is a theoretical construct for explaining how a text relates to the social processes within which it is located”, and consists of three components: the main social activity taking place, the people involved in it (plus the way they relate to one another), and the roles and functions of the text within this social activity −known technically in systemic functional linguistics as ‘field’, tenor and mode. The setting, on the other hand, consists immediate of the linguistic event material environment (in a sales encounter, for example, the setting is the shop or company where the event is taking place), and can be seen as a manifestation of the context, but not as the context of situation itself.
b. Context, register and genre: Martin’s perspective
Martin’s teleological perspective (1992, 1997, 2000) on genre analysis is grounded on systemic functional linguistics. In his perspective genre is defined as: “A system structured in parts, with specific means to specific ends. Considering that teleology sees “the world as a system of relationships between means and ends” [Novo Dicionário Aurélio da Língua Portuguesa], the stages through which a text is structured lead the user to a concluding point, and the text can be seen by the speaker/listener as incomplete if this conclusion is not reached.” (Vian Jr & Lima-Lopes, 2005: 29)As I have pointed out above, functional linguists put great emphasis on the relationship between language and context. The main contention here is that it is impossible to understand the meaning of what someone has said or written without knowing something about the context surrounding the text. And the opposite is also true: if we can understand what our interlocutor writes or says, we can also draw conclusions about the context of situation (Martin, 2001). The relation between language and context is one of ‘realization’: the text ‘realizes’ the situation and the linguistic system ‘realizes’ the culture. We must keep in mind, however, that we are referring to a semiotic and not a material relationship, that is, not a relationship of cause and effect but of semiotic construal −the culture is construed by systems of linguistic choice, while the situation is construed by patterns of language use (Halliday, 1978).
In Martin’s view (2001), register and genre are semiotic systems distinct from other semiotic systems such as language, music, dance, images, etc, in the sense that register and genre are kinds of ‘parasites’. That is, they do not have a phonology of their own, and the only way they can create meaning is by using words and structures from the semiotic system we call language, a system able to generate its own meanings without making use of resources from another one. In short, register corresponds to the context of situation, and genre to the context of culture. For Martin (2001: 155), “a genre is a staged, goal-oriented, purposeful activity in which speakers engage as members of our culture”. Virtually everything we do involves some kind of genre. Language, in that sense, functions as the fonology of register, and both register and language function as the fonology of genre.
9. Methods:
The paper is organized in the following sections: 1) ‘Systemic functional linguistics and language education’, where I present some basic theoretical constructs from SFL (such as the notions of metafunctions, context of situation and register) and their implications for the teaching/learning of languages, in particular second/foreign languages; 2) ‘Context, register and genre: Martin’s perspective’, which introduces Martin’s approach to genre analysis, strongly influenced by SFL and by the notions of context and register; 2.1.) ‘An analysis of a reader’s letter according to Martin’s proposal’, where I analyse the register choices and the schematic structure of a particular genre, a reader’s letter to a magazine; 3) ‘Implications of context, register and genre in language education,’ which tries to combine the SF notions of context of situation and register and Martin’s view of genre in terms of their implications for FL/SL teaching; and ‘Concluding remarks.’
10. Finding:
From this perspective, we could say that a culture is composed of the totality of its staged and purposeful activities or social processes. Genres are functional because their overall pattern is not random or arbitrary: each genre is as it is because its structure has proved effective to achieve its purpose(s). In this sense, the structure is a facilitating convention: “the text has identifiable parts precisely because these steps enable the interactants to achieve the social purpose” (Painter, 2001: 170).
In short, genres, like language, are functional, i.e. their structure serves social purposes, especially that of enabling subjects and institutions to interact socially. In that sense, genres that function to persuade and inform are resources for social inclusion and tools for social change it is through learning and mastering such genres that individuals and organizations can produce a social impact (Painter, 2001).
From a functional perspective on language, the concept of genre can be valuable for second/ foreign language teachers because it provides a basis for a curriculum oriented to socially grounded, purposeful language activities. But in order to approapriate the socially effective genres that ‘inform and persuade’, students have to construe a linguistic system flexible enough to be adapted to the different occurrences of any genre, a task that can be made easier with the concept of register. A central theoretical point here is not simply that every text realizes three different aspects of its situational context, but that this is so “because particular areas of the language system are sensitive to particular aspects of the context” (Painter, 2001: 176). In other words, situational contexts are impacted by the overall language and cultural system, but the overall system is also influenced by local aspects of discursive events.Therefore, a functional perspective on language teaching/learning seeks to help students tobuild systematic links between contextual and linguistic parameters when using language, a goal which is facilitated by SFL’s view of language as “sets of related choices or options, each of which is called a system” (Painter, 2001: 176). Options within the various systems (e.g. mood options such as declarative, interrogative or imperative) will have implications on the lexico-grammatical structure of the text. According to Painter (2001), it is the functional relations between sociocultural processes and generic structure, and between the register variables and the metafunctional components of the linguistic system, that makes the notions of genre and register useful for language education. The notions of register and genre can be used to make students aware of the sociocultural features of the text-type that is being taught and of which linguistic choices are more likely to be made in its textualization, as well as to help teachers “to identify and focus on whatever aspect of language in use the learner needs most help with”
According to Martin, the issues related to the social aspects of genres and to the linguistic patterns linked to specific genres remain unresolved within the field of genre studies. The author sees genres as flexible structures influenced by the social interactions in which they are used, and social interactions as singular events due to the genres used and to the linguistics choices at the level of register (Vian Jr & Lima-Lopes, 2005). In this sense, register is the element that mediates the instantiation of a genre, leaving in the text structure specific traces of the situation in which it occurred (Eggins, 1994).
From this perspective, genre is seen as one of the levels of context, and the context of culture as the backdrop to the interaction, “constituting a semiotic potential [for social interactions]” (Vian Jr & Lima-Lopes, 2005: 35). The organization of semiotic plans proposed by Martin, based on a similar model presented by Halliday, is reflected in the choices made at the level of the context of situation (register) and materialized in language, since genre and register are abstract notions. This way:
“The context of culture (genre) should be seen as a more general and more abstract plan than the context of situation (register). As a consequence, while a genre is instantiated through language, this realization is mediated through the realization of the register”
(Vian Jr & Lima-Lopes, 2005: 35).
11. Conclusion :
To sum up, one of the main contentions of this paper is that we cannot fully understand a text if we do not know something about its context. As social beings, all our interactional contexts are social, and involve people doing things with their lives (field), interacting with others (tenor) and using some communicational channel and abstraction to do so (mode). Furthermore, our social contexts involve people participating in staged, goal-oriented activities (genres). The register variables of field, tenor and mode represent the attempt of the school of systemic functional linguistics to understand and explain the distinct situational contexts in which we operate and interact. The discussions about genre represent a more recent attempt from researchers from the same linguistic school to explore the context of culture, especially in terms of language teaching/learning. Referring to the relevance of the notions of context, register and genre to language education, Christie (2004: 34-35) states that:
“A great deal has been accomplished in the space of a few years in developing a theory of language in education drawing on SFL theory. [...] The theory of register and genre gives us a principled way to identify different text types or genres and to explain their significance to young learners. [...] The fact that more work remains to be done in developing pedagogic accounts of the grammar for the use of students indicates that we have reached a new milestone in the unfolding and development of the theory. The challenge is, as always, considerable, but the intellectual resources to do the work are certainly available. The basis for development of improved models of grammar for teaching to students in school is available, and the research in determining what should be taught at what ages across the years of schooling has begun. As has always been true in the SF tradition, the work will be undertaken in partnership between theoretical and applied linguistics, for the dialogue between the two has been the source of much of the productiveness of the SFL tradition.”
