3.3.2 Registerial Organisation of Text
From the SFL perspective, a text in context of situation involves social activities, role relationships and interactive intentions between participants via the intermediary of communication.When individuals interact with others, they need to achieve appropriate linguistic meanings in their selection, so they will not arbitrarily select language from the network of system composed of many subsystems.Language functions as a constrained social semantic system in text in that individuals select and produce behaviour potential within cultural and situational scopes.A text is limited to the social exchange of meaning and the selection of meaning potential due to the three registerial variables of tenor, field and mode.A particular text type is a register embedded with semantic configuration that connects to the field of discourse, tenor of discourse and mode of discourse, which are defined respectively as ‘what is happening’, ‘who are taking part’ and ‘what part the language is playing’ (Halliday & Hasan, 1985).
3.3.2.1 System and Structure
Saussure (1915/2011) proposes the concept of ‘system’, and claims that language is a super structure which consists of a single system.He distinguishes between langue and parole, and defines langue as a synchronic abstract language system that is produced by parole behaviour in society, or by a grammar system that lurks in individuals’ mind.This parole is individuals’ oral expression that is based on formulated conventions in their mind and is realised in the uses of langue.In his view, language is a semiotic system that is composed of a system of signs for thought expression.
Following Saussure’s way of distinguishing between structure and system as two fundamental components of language, Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) refer to structure as the syntagmatic order of semantic potential expression, and system as the paradigmatic relation of semiotic meaning.In their words,
‘Structure is the syntagmatic ordering in language:patterns, or regularities, in what goes together with what.System, by contrast, is ordering on the other axis:patterns in what could go instead of what.This is paradigmatic ordering in language.’ (p.22)
Hence, structure is realised by the selection in system, whereas system contributes to the structural formation and the functions of meaning-making in language.
Language in SFL is seen as a set of systemic resources containing choices of meanings, rather than a system of rules in terms of restricted linguistic forms.At the same time, language is also a complex semiotic system that produces meanings.From the SFL perspective, the selection of these choices are natural rather than arbitrary, because the choices of meanings can be triggered by other choices or be interpreted in relation to the potential of the existing choices in a particular context.Innovatively, SFL describes and explains this discursive process of interaction in the representation of grammar.In other words, in the social practice of interaction, the selection of the components in the system is the selection of meanings.
Modelling sets of all choices from the grammatical perspective, SFL introduces the idea of system networks.Figure 3.2 exemplifies the syntagmatic and paradigmatic choices of the lexicogrammatical system of MOOD.Along a scale of delicacy from left to right, or from general to specific, each grammatical component is considered to be an entry condition of the next one.The horizontal arrows represent the set of choices in a particular system, while the square brackets indicate that the choices are oppositional.Therefore, one chooses either major or minor, indicative or imperative.If indicative is chosen, for example, a more delicate selection between declarative and interrogative follows.The down-facing arrows represent the realisation of paradigmatic choices in the structures, embedding with a link between the paradigm and syntagm.The range of options stands for the potential to make meaning; + shows that the realisation follows the component, and ^ demonstrates that the sequence is not alternative; therefore, the meaning of Subject ^ Finite is not the same as Finite ^ Subject.
Figure 3.2 System network of MOOD (from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p.24)
3.3.2.2 Stratification, Realisation and Instantiation
Three strata of semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology introduce the modelling of language in SFL.They are connected together as a system to realise meaning selection in the context.As Figure 3.3 displays, the semantics and lexicogrammar planes are organised into content, while the planes of phonology and phonetics are further stratified into expression.Each stratum is projected by the other one, while the lower stratum is not a resource in constituting the higher one, but in realising it.To exemplify this in the oral practice of interaction, for example, when individuals in a certain context use spoken discourse to express the semantic meaning of saying, doing or thinking, they choose lexicogrammatical wording through the expression of sounding.An appropriate language use in a practice, then, is realised in this continuity between the selection of grammar and lexis, called ‘lexicogrammar’ in SFL due to this continuity.
Figure 3.3 SFL strata of language (from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p.26)
Language is represented through discourse via three metafunctional meanings, i.e., ideational, interpersonal and textual (see the description of metafunctions in Section 3.3.2.3), and then produces texts.What individuals ‘can say’, ‘can mean’ and ‘can do’ are realised in the semantic structures of the linguistic selections.According to Halliday (1978), first, the semantic meaning of ‘can do’ is placed at the top of the layer, demonstrating human beings’ behaviour potential in context.Second, ‘can mean’, a meaning potential in the middle of the layer, reveals the possibility of reflecting or realising human beings’ behaviour in the contents of the language system.Third, ‘can say’, an actualised potential, is placed at the specific level to define the actual expression of language.Therefore, individuals transfer things that ‘can do’ into ‘can mean’ to organise and produce a system of meaning potential through the uses of language (Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014).
Individuals will experience two processes when they adopt semantic potential to express their thoughts:that is, realisation and instantiation.Realisation is a process in which people select a set of linguistic features embedded with semantic potential.Instantiation is a process in which meaning is encoded and recoded in language expression.Text and system are connected through instantiation.As exemplified in Figure 3.4 below, the relationship between realisation and instantiation is represented as a cline that places system and text at different poles between potential and instance.There are two patterns that link system and text, one that from the system pole can be viewed as subpotential, and the other that can be defined as instance type.
Figure 3.4 The cline of instantiation (from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p.28)
Halliday distinguishes between system and text with the metaphor of climate and weather.Climate is the system that results from long-term weather effects; while weather is the instance of climate.Analogously, the ‘system of a language is “instantiated” in the form of text’ (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p.27), which becomes the meaning potential in producing the text in and through the actual use of the language.A text creates its own environment, and thus varies in accordance with the contexts where it is used.To analyse a text in different situational types, instantiation can be helpful in providing different start points.In this sense, individuals also vary in the use of the system of a language in terms of differentiated instances, because their experience ‘is remembered, imagined, abstracted, metaphorized and mythologized’ (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p.29).In order to explain Halliday’s perspective on the use of language in relation to experience, the following two subsections introduce how a text is organised as meaning and in what way this organisation is reflected in wording.
3.3.2.3 Metafunctions and Lexicogrammar
Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) suggest that language construes human beings’ experience into categories, ‘making sense of our experience and acting out our social relationships’ (p.30).They recognise three metafunctional meanings in the organisation of lexicogrammar of a text:ideational, interpersonal and textual.Three metafunctions together constitute a semantic system of meaning potential, which is realised in the process of semantic selection.Briefly, the ideational metafunction is further divided into the experiential and logical modes for expressing individuals’ experience in the intrinsic and extrinsic worlds, and reflecting social events such as what happened, when and where it happened or who was involved.The interpersonal metafunction is viewed as a ‘language as action’ (Halliday, 2014, p.30) which represents how a speaker judges events, attends social activities and establishes social relationships in accordance with his or her identity, social statute, attitude or motivation.The textual metafunction is an ‘intrinsic’ (Halliday, 1978, p.48) factor that is associated with the external environment to create texts in a particular context.It is therefore an ‘enabling or facilitating’ (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p.30) function alongside ideational and interpersonal functions in the organisation of language.
Patterns of these three metafunctional meanings are reflected in the patterns of lexicogrammar.Therefore, the ideational metafunction at the clause level consists of Process, Participants, Circumstances, as well as logical relations between clauses and clause combinations.Second, the interpersonal meaning involves the MOOD system and is composed of patterns of evaluation.Third, the textual metafunction is constituted by Theme, Rheme, and the concept of cohesion.