Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 21:2 (2014) ► pp.176–209

Issues in developing unified systems for contextual Field and Mode

 | Sun Yat-sen University
‘Context of situation’ is a central concept in Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) theory, and recently there has been a renewed interest in modelling context and developing a set of features for the contextual parameters Field, Tenor, and Mode. Much of this work has been inspired by Hasan’s and Butt’s development of ‘contextualisation system networks’ (Butt 2004; Hasan 1999, 2009). However, a single comprehensive descriptive framework has still not yet been agreed upon. The current Field and Mode networks include contextual features that are under some debate: ‘the role of language’, ‘ancillary’, ‘constitutive’, and ‘material action’. This paper reviews these features and presents a unified set of primary systems for Field and for Mode. Further, the paper proposes that the primary systems should reflect the core defining features of the contextual parameters, in this case, Field and Mode: the nature of the activity in terms of the kind of experience around which the situation revolves, and the nature of the activity in terms of the mode through which it is expressed respectively. Reference is made to key notions within SFL theory that need to be considered in modelling the contextual parameters as sets of choices in system networks: the relations of realisation and instantiation, inter- and intra-stratal interdependency, and the concept of ‘semiotic’. Where relevant, choices in the system networks are explained using illustrative examples.
Published online: 22 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.2.02bow
References (45)
Bartlett, Tom. 2013. ‘I’ll manage the context’: Context, environment, and the potential for institutional change. In Lise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 342–364.Google Scholar
Bowcher, Wendy L. 1999. Investigating institutionalization in context. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 141–176.Google Scholar
. 2007. Field and multimodal texts. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), 619–646.Google Scholar
. 2010. The history and theoretical development of ‘context of situation’ in Systemic Functional Linguistics. Annual Review of Functional Linguistics 21. 64–93.Google Scholar
. 2013. Material action as choice in field. In Lise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), 318–341.Google Scholar
Butt, David. 2001. Firth, Halliday and the development of systemic functional theory. In Sylvain 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 beginnings to the present, 1806–1838. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2004. Parameters of context: On establishing the similarities and differences between social processes. Sydney: Macquarie University, unpublished mimeo.Google Scholar
. 2008. The robustness of realisational systems. In Jonathan Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Strategies for implementing intelligent applications of language studies, 59–83. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2012. Practical sciences, interpersonal meaning, and networks for tenor. Paper presented at the Register & Context Symposium , February 6–8 2012, Sydney: Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Butt, David & Rebekah Wegener. 2007. The work of concepts: Context and metafunction in the systemic functional model. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), 589–618.Google Scholar
Cloran, Carmel. 1987. Negotiating new contexts in conversation. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 11. 85–110.Google Scholar
. 1999. Context, material situation and text. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 177–217.Google Scholar
Firth, John R. 1950. Personality and society. The Sociological Review: Journal of the Institute of Sociology 42(2). 37–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1957. Modes of meaning. In John R. Firth, Papers in linguistics 1934–1951, 190–215.Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 1957/1968. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–55. Studies in linguistic analysis (Special volume of the Philological Society, Oxford), 1–31. Reprinted in Frank R. Palmer (ed.). 1968. Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952–59, 168–205. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1968. Linguistic analysis as a study of meaning. In Frank R. Palmer (ed.), Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952–59, 12–26. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fontaine, Lise, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.). 2013. Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring choice. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gee, James P. 2004. Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.). 1999. Text and context in functional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1972. Towards a sociological semantics. Urbino: Centro Internazionale di Semiotica e Linguistica of the University of Urbino.Google Scholar
. 1977/2002. Text as semantic choice in social contexts. In Teun van Dijk & Janos Petöfi (eds.), Grammars and descriptions, 176–225. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in Jonathan Webster (ed.). 2002. Linguistic studies of text and discourse. Volume 2 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 23–81. London: Continuum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In Robin Fawcett, M.A.K. Halliday, Sydney Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), The semiotics of culture and language. Volume 1: Language as social semiotic, 3–35. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
. 1985. Part A. In M.A.K. Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective, 2–49. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991/2007. The notion of ‘context’ in language education. In Thao Le & Mike McCausland (eds.), Language education: Interaction and development, Proceedings of the International Conference , Vietnam, April 1991. Launceston: University of Tasmania. Reprinted in Jonathan Webster (ed.). 2007. Language and education. Volume 9 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 269–290. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 1992. How do you mean? In Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent theory and practice, 20–35. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
. 2009. Methods–techniques–problems. In M.A.K. Halliday & Jonathan Webster (eds.), 59–86.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., Angus McIntosh & Peter Strevens. 1964. The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Jonathan Webster. 2009. Keywords. In M.A.K. Halliday & Jonathan Webster (eds.), 229–253.
Halliday M.A.K. & Jonathan Webster (eds.). 2009. Continuum companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1981. What’s going on: A dynamic view of context in language. In James E. Copeland & Philip W. Davis (eds.), The seventh LACUS forum 1980, 106–121. Colombia, SC: Hornbeam.Google Scholar
. 1985. Part B. In M.A.K. Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective, 51–118. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The conception of context in text. In Peter Fries & Michael Gregory (eds.), Discourse in society: Systemic functional perspectives: Meaning and choice in language: Studies for Michael Halliday, 183–283. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
. 1999. Speaking with reference to context. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 219–32.
. 2001. Wherefore context? The place of context in the system and process of language. In Ren Shaozeng, William Guthrie & I.W. Ronald Fong (eds.), Grammar and discourse: Proceedings of the international conference on discourse analysis, 1–21. PRC, Macau: Publication Centre, University of Macau.Google Scholar
. 2004. Analysing discursive variation. In Lynne Young & Claire Harrison (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Studies in social change, 15–52. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2009. The place of context in a systemic functional model. In M.A.K. Halliday & Jonathan Webster (eds.), 166–189.
Hasan, Ruqaiya, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.). 2007. Continuing discourse on language. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Hodge, Bob. 2012. The deep roots of multimodality. Paper presented at the International Systemic Functional Congress ISFC39 , University of Technology Sydney, 16–20 July, 2012.
Kappagoda, Astika. 2009. The use of Systemic Functional Linguistics in automated text mining. Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence Division, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Department of Defence, Australian Government, [URL] (23 June, 2010.)Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1984. Language, register and genre. In Frances Christie (ed.), Children writing: Reader, 21–30. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Intrinsic functionality: Implications for contextual theory. Social semiotics 1(1). 99–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2011. Register and context symposium: Question — some thoughts. Unpublished draft document presented for discussion at the Register & context symposium at Macquarie University, February 2011.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2008. Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Society and discourse: How social contexts influence texts and talk. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Chen, Yumin
2022. Exploring modality in multimodal macrogenre: A social semiotic analysis of EFL pedagogic materials in China. Journal of World Languages 7:3 ► pp. 536 ff. DOI logo
Bartlett, Tom & Wendy L. Bowcher
2021. Context in Systemic Functional Linguistics. Functions of Language 28:3 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Liang, Jennifer Yameng
2021. Understanding context in computer-mediated communication. Functions of Language 28:3 ► pp. 342 ff. DOI logo
Hasan, Ruqaiya
2020. Tenor. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 2:2 ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Moore, Alison Rotha
2020. Progress and tensions in modelling register as a semantic configuration. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 2:1 ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo
Fung, Andy & Francis Robert Low
2019. Semantic Networks. In The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, ► pp. 333 ff. DOI logo
Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen
2019. The representation of motion in discourse: variation across registers. Language Sciences 72 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Bowcher, Wendy L.
2018. The semiotic sense of context vs the material sense of context. Functional Linguistics 5:1 DOI logo
Bowcher, Wendy L.
2019. Context and Register. In The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, ► pp. 142 ff. DOI logo
Bowcher, Wendy L.
2021. Context of situation and the role of language. Functions of Language 28:3 ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Urbach, Claire
2017. Book review: Ruqaiya Hasan, Context in the System and Process of Language. Discourse & Communication 11:3 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Bartlett, Tom
2016. Multiscalar Modelling of Context: Some Questions Raised by the Category of Mode. In Society in Language, Language in Society, ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
Berry, Margaret
2016. On Describing Contexts of Situation. In Society in Language, Language in Society, ► pp. 184 ff. DOI logo
Fung, Andy
2016. Hasan’s Semantic Networks Revisited: a Cantonese Systemic Functional Approach. In Society in Language, Language in Society, ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Rudge, Luke A.
2015. Towards an understanding of contextual features that influence the linguistic formality of British Sign Language users. Functional Linguistics 2:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.