220MARILYNCROSS terMeulen,A.(1988),'Linguisticsand thePhilosophyof Language',inLinguistics: theCambridgeSurvey,pp.430-446,F.Newmeyer(ed.),Cambridge,Mass: CambridgeUniversityPress. Miller,G.A.(1985),'Dictionariesof theMind',Proceedings23rdAnnualMeetingof Association forComputationalLinguistics,Chicago,Universityof Chicago,305-314. Nirenburg,S.andNirenburgI.(1988),'AFrameworkforLexicalSelectionin NaturalLanguageGeneration',Proceedingsofthe12thInternationalConferenceon ComputationalLinguistics,Budapest,471-475. Nirenburg,S.andRaskinV.(1987),'TheSubworldConceptLexiconandthe LexiconManagementSystem',ComputationalLinguistics13,276-289. Patten,R.(1988),SystemicTextGenerationasProblemSolving,Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. Pazienza,M.T.andVelardiP.(1987),'AStructuredRepresentationofWord-SensesforSemanticAnalysis',Proceedings3rdInternationalConferenceonComputa-tionalLinguistics,Copenhagen,249-257. Pustejovsky,J.andNirenburgS.(1987),'LexicalSelectionintheProcessof Text Generation',Proceedings25thAnnualMeetingofAssociationforComputational Linguistics,Stanford,201-206. Ritchie,G.D.,PulmanS.G.BlackA.W.,RussellG.J.(1987),'AComputational FrameworkforLexicalDescription',ComputationalLinguistics13,290-307. deSaussure,F.(1906-1911),CourseinGeneralLinguistics.TranslatedbyR.Harris 1983.London:Duckworth. Small,S.L.,CottrellG.W.andTanenhausM.K.(1988),LexicalAmbiguityResolu-tion:PerspectivesfromPsycholinguistics,NeuropsychologyandArtificialIntelligence,San Mateo:MorganKaufmann:\ Tucker,G.H.andFawcettR.P.(1991),ModellingLexisinaComputationalSystemic-FunctionalGrammar,DraftPaper. Velardi,P.,andPazienza M.T.(1989),'Computer AidedInterpretationof Lexical Cooccurrences',Proceedingsof 27th Annual Meetingof theAssociation forComputational Linguistics,185-192. Wilks,Y.,FassD.,GuoC.,McDonald J.E.,PlateT.andSlatorB.M.(1988), 'MachineTractableDictionariesasToolsandResourcesforNaturalLanguage Processing',Proceedingsof the12thInternationalConferenceonComputationalLinguistics, Budapest,750-755. Wilks,Y.,FassD.,GuoC.,McDonald J.E.,PlateT.andSlatorB.M.(1989), 'ATractableMachineDictionaryasResourceforComputationalSemantics',in ComputationalLexicography forNatural LanguageProcessing,pp.193-228,B.Boguraev andT.Briscoe(eds),London:Longman. PartVI.Aunifiedtheoryof registeranalysis 11Registerintheround:diversityInaunified theoryof registeranalysis * ChristianMatthiessen 1.Registerin itsownright Registeranalysisisnotsubsumedunderanyof thenewtypesof analysis thathavebeenestablishedingenerallinguisticsinthelastthirtyyearsor so- discourseanalysis,conversationalanalysisorethnographicanalysis-because isnota'component'ofdiscourse,conversation, ethnographicsettingoranyothersimilarconstruct;itisanaspectofa separatedimensionof organization,thatof functionalvariation.Likeany othertheoreticalabstraction- discourse,word,structure,lexicalitem-registerisnotaseparate'thing'thatcanbeinsulatedfromtherestof the linguisticsystemandprocess;butwecanforegrounditinregisteranalysis asonewayintothecomplexoflanguageincontext. Registeranalysisisbotha ,linguisticandametalinguisticactivity.Itis something weengagein linguisticallyaslanguageusers- weinterpret texts intermsoftheregisterstheyinstantiateandwealsoproducetextsas instancesofparticularregistertypes.Aslinguists,wehavetoengagein registeranalysismetalinguistically to interpret'register'theoreticallyand to produceandevaluatedescriptionsofregistersintermsofthetheoretical potentialofthemetalanguage.Butsincethemetalanguageweuseas isitselfasemioticsystem,ittoohasregisters(cf.Section8)-meta-registers- whichshadeintodifferentmetalanguages.Thechaptersin thisbookcontributetodifferentaspectsof registeranalysis,bothlinguistic and metalinguistic.Letmebeginby brieflyreviewing thetheoreticalorigin ofthenotionofaspartofourmetalanguageforconstruing language. DeBeaugrande(thisvolume)notesthatFirth'snotionofrestricted languagesisaforerunnerofthenotionofregister .Wecanalsorelate registerto fundamentalaspectof FirthiantheorydeBeaugrande doesnot Thischapterowesits.existencetoMohsenGhadessy'sencouragementtowriteitandI'm verygratefulfortheopportunitytobring togethervariousperspectivesonregister.I'm also greatlyindebtedtoMichaelHallidayforcommentsonadraftversion. 222 monosystemic o l1Wn!r Figure11.1 CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN varieties ofsingle system -registervariationetc. polysystemic - restricted languages etc. poly-languagein context language out of context Themovefrommono systemicthesistosynthesisof varietiesof system mention,viz.Firth'spolysystemicness.Ithasbeenheldatvariouspoints inlinguistichistorythatlanguageismono systemic- onesystemwhere everythinghangstogetherasSaussure'sfollowerMeilletputit.Firth disagreedfundamentallywiththistypeof monolithicviewandarguedfor apoly systemicapproach,wherelanguageisinterpretedasasystemof systems.(Infact,Firthdidn'tliketheabstractionof'alanguage'.)The polystemicprincipleisevidentatvariousplacesinhistheorizing,e.g.in Firthiansystemandstructurephonologywherephonologicalsystemshave placesof structureastheirpointsof origin.Firth had takenover thenotion ofcontextdevelopedbyMalinowski(e.g.,1923)andwhen'contextof situation'and'polysystemicness'arecombined,thenitistheoretically reasonabletoassumesomesenseofdifferentsystemsoflanguagesfor systemicallydifferentcontexts.TheFirthiannotionofrestricted REGISTERINTHEROUND223 languagesisthusarguablyanaturalconsequenceof hiscontextualismand polysystemicness. Toidealize.thepicture,wecaninterpretthedevelopmentofcurrent registertheoryasadialecticsequence(seeFigure11.1,whereacircle representsalinguisticsystem).Thethesisisthat languageismono systemic - thiswascertainlythepositionFirthreactedagainstand,asde Beaugrandepointsout,itseemstobethedefaultinmainstreamwork.For instance,phonologicalsystemshavetendedtobeinterpreted mono systemicallyintheAmericanStructuralist-generativisttradition (althoughnotnecessarilyanylonger:cf.Henderson1987,onthisinrela-tiontoFirth)andmainstreamtypologicalworkdoesnottendtotake registersintoaccount.Herelanguageisdecontextualized:thereisno provisioninthetheoryforacontextualsystemnorforawayofrelating contexttolanguage.Consequently,languageismodelledasasystemthat isinsulatedfromcontextualpressuresfordiversity. 1Theantithesisis Firthianpolystemicnessjustdiscussedabove,withrestrictedlanguagesas theseedforsystemicregistertheory.Theuniformityofasingleglobal systemisreplacedbythediversityof apluralityof morelocalsystems.The synthesisisregistertheoryinsystemiclinguistics-'atheoryof functional variationofthegeneralsystemcorrelatedwithcontextualvariation.Part ofthechallengeitfacedwastostrikeabalancebetweenuniformityand diversity.Registertheoryhastobeageneraltheoryofthespecialcase, showing howspecialcasesarerelatedtothegeneralcase,i.e.showing how diverseparticularsystemsarevarietiesof amoregeneralone.The limiting caseisstill,ofcourse,thesituationwherethereisnogeneralsystem. register saidt()__ andSt:revens(1964)."ThisearIy wo-rkdrewnotonly Firthbut --alsoonworKiritlie1950sbyU re,Ellis,Berg,andothers.It includestheinterpretationofregisterintermsofvariationwithinthe linguisticsystemaccordingtodifferentcontextsof situation.Inthisperiod, SpencerandGregory(1964)andinparticularGregory(1967)werealso veryinfluential.Gregory'sworksortedoutdifferentkindsof differentiation veryclearly.Sincethen,thetheoryhasbeenextended:ithasbecome possibletoplacemoreemphasisonthesemanticsystem(e.g.,Halliday 1973)andtoidentifythecorrelationbetweencontextandlanguagemuch morepreciselythankstothetheoryofmetafunctionsoflanguagewhich developedinthe19608after,andindependentlyof,theoriginalstatement of registertheory(e.g.,Halliday1978;HallidayandHasan1985/9).More workhasalsobeendoneontheprobabilisticinterpretationof thelinguistic system(inparticular,NesbittandPlum1988;Halliday1991c;Halliday andJames,1991)sothatwecanbegintoexploreregistersintermsof settingsofsystemicprobabilities(seefurtherSection3.2.2below).Atthe sametime,alternativewaysofmodellingvariationhavebeenexplored; alongsidetheversiondevelopedbyHalliday,Hasanandothers,Martin andothershavedevelopedastratifyingmodel,oftenreferredtoasthe genremodel.Iwillreturntothedifferencebetweenthesetwovarietiesin Section2.3below.Theexistenceofthesetw.omodelsalsounderlines 222 monosystemic o l1Wn!r Figure11.1 CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN varieties ofsingle system -registervariationetc. polysystemic - restricted languages etc. poly-languagein context language out of context Themovefrommono systemicthesistosynthesisof varietiesof system mention,viz.Firth'spolysystemicness.Ithasbeenheldatvariouspoints inlinguistichistorythatlanguageismono systemic- onesystemwhere everythinghangstogetherasSaussure'sfollowerMeilletputit.Firth disagreedfundamentallywiththistypeof monolithicviewandarguedfor apoly systemicapproach,wherelanguageisinterpretedasasystemof systems.(Infact,Firthdidn'tliketheabstractionof'alanguage'.)The polystemicprincipleisevidentatvariousplacesinhistheorizing,e.g.in Firthiansystemandstructurephonologywherephonologicalsystemshave placesof structureastheirpointsof origin.Firth had takenover thenotion ofcontextdevelopedbyMalinowski(e.g.,1923)andwhen'contextof situation'and'polysystemicness'arecombined,thenitistheoretically reasonabletoassumesomesenseofdifferentsystemsoflanguagesfor systemicallydifferentcontexts.TheFirthiannotionofrestricted REGISTERINTHEROUND223 languagesisthusarguablyanaturalconsequenceof hiscontextualismand polysystemicness. Toidealize.thepicture,wecaninterpretthedevelopmentofcurrent registertheoryasadialecticsequence(seeFigure11.1,whereacircle representsalinguisticsystem).Thethesisisthat languageismono systemic - thiswascertainlythepositionFirthreactedagainstand,asde Beaugrandepointsout,itseemstobethedefaultinmainstreamwork.For instance,phonologicalsystemshavetendedtobeinterpreted mono systemicallyintheAmericanStructuralist-generativisttradition (althoughnotnecessarilyanylonger:cf.Henderson1987,onthisinrela-tiontoFirth)andmainstreamtypologicalworkdoesnottendtotake registersintoaccount.Herelanguageisdecontextualized:thereisno provisioninthetheoryforacontextualsystemnorforawayofrelating contexttolanguage.Consequently,languageismodelledasasystemthat isinsulatedfromcontextualpressuresfordiversity. 1Theantithesisis Firthianpolystemicnessjustdiscussedabove,withrestrictedlanguagesas theseedforsystemicregistertheory.Theuniformityofasingleglobal systemisreplacedbythediversityof apluralityof morelocalsystems.The synthesisisregistertheoryinsystemiclinguistics-'atheoryof functional variationofthegeneralsystemcorrelatedwithcontextualvariation.Part ofthechallengeitfacedwastostrikeabalancebetweenuniformityand diversity.Registertheoryhastobeageneraltheoryofthespecialcase, showing howspecialcasesarerelatedtothegeneralcase,i.e.showing how diverseparticularsystemsarevarietiesof amoregeneralone.The limiting caseisstill,ofcourse,thesituationwherethereisnogeneralsystem. register saidt()__ andSt:revens(1964)."ThisearIy wo-rkdrewnotonly Firthbut --alsoonworKiritlie1950sbyU re,Ellis,Berg,andothers.It includestheinterpretationofregisterintermsofvariationwithinthe linguisticsystemaccordingtodifferentcontextsof situation.Inthisperiod, SpencerandGregory(1964)andinparticularGregory(1967)werealso veryinfluential.Gregory'sworksortedoutdifferentkindsof differentiation veryclearly.Sincethen,thetheoryhasbeenextended:ithasbecome possibletoplacemoreemphasisonthesemanticsystem(e.g.,Halliday 1973)andtoidentifythecorrelationbetweencontextandlanguagemuch morepreciselythankstothetheoryofmetafunctionsoflanguagewhich developedinthe19608after,andindependentlyof,theoriginalstatement of registertheory(e.g.,Halliday1978;HallidayandHasan1985/9).More workhasalsobeendoneontheprobabilisticinterpretationof thelinguistic system(inparticular,NesbittandPlum1988;Halliday1991c;Halliday andJames,1991)sothatwecanbegintoexploreregistersintermsof settingsofsystemicprobabilities(seefurtherSection3.2.2below).Atthe sametime,alternativewaysofmodellingvariationhavebeenexplored; alongsidetheversiondevelopedbyHalliday,Hasanandothers,Martin andothershavedevelopedastratifyingmodel,oftenreferredtoasthe genremodel.Iwillreturntothedifferencebetweenthesetwovarietiesin Section2.3below.Theexistenceofthesetw.omodelsalsounderlines 224CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN anotherimportantissue:thenotionof'register'isnotanisolated'thing'; itisatheoreticalconstructthatismeaningfulrelativetotheoveralltheory Itispari:of.Asthesystemic-functionaltheory' of languageincontexthas' expandedsincetheearly1960s,so'register'has beenrecontextualized.For instance,nowthatideologyisbeginningtobecoveredmoreexplicitlyby thetheoryitisbecomingpossibletorelateregistertoideology(cf.de Beaugrande,thisvolume:Section4;Hunston,thisvolume;Martinetal. 1988)forinstanceintermsofdifferentialaccesstoregistersandtheir differentsocialvalues(seefurtherSection3.1.2below).Thisdoesnotin itselfmeanthatregisterhaschangedorhastochange- merelythatits contexthasexpandedastheoverallmodelhasexpandedsothatitispossi-bletoworkouttheoreticalconsequencesinnewdomains.Intheoriessuch astheglossematic,stratificationalandsystemicones,theoreticalconstructs derivetheirsignificancefromtheirplacementrelativetootherconstructs. Therehas,then,beenconsiderabletheoreticaldevelopmentofregister theorysincetheearly1960s.Andithastakenplaceininteractionwith ongoingdescriptivework.Onemightconclude,asdeBeaugrandedoes, thatthereisabiastowardspractical-descriptiveresearchovertheoretical interpretationandthat'register'needsmoretheory.Incontrast,Iwould beinclinedtoemphasizetheneedforextensiveanddetaileddescriptions ofregisters:wenowhavethetheoreticalresourcesforundertakingsuch studiesand alsothecomputationaltools(uptoapoint,asalways:westill urgentlyneedtobringparserstobearonlargequantitiesof text).Atthe sametime,theoryanddescriptiondevelopininteractionandfurther, extensivedescriptiveworkwillcreatenewdemandsontheoryanda numberof theoreticalissuescanonlybesettledwithabroaderdescriptive base. Thechaptersinthisbookmakevariousvaluablecontributionstowards thedevelopment" ofourtheoreticalanddescriptiveuO:derstandingof 'register'.Theyaregroupedunderfiveheadings- practiceandtheory, controlling and changing ideologies,theroleof metaphor:grammaticaland lexical,quantitativeevidenceforregisteranalysis;andcomputerapplica-tions- whichrangeparticularcriticalaspectsofthelinguisticsystemin relationtoregister(grammaticalmetaphor;ideology)togeneralissuesof theory,applicationandmethodology.Inthisfinalchapter,Ishalltryto relatetotheother contributionsin another,complementary way berelating registertothegeneralsystemic-functionaltheoryoflanguageincontext andthedimensionsthat definethesemioticspaceof language.Ishalliden-tifythepointsthataredeveloped,illustratedandchallengedinthispresent bookinparticularbutalsomoregenerallyinkeycontributionstoregister analysissuchasGhadessy(1988). Recognitionof registeroutsidesystemic1unctionallinguistics Sincetheorientationinmydiscussionissystemic-functional,itisworth emphasizing relatedwork in other traditions.DeBeaugrande(thisvolume) REGISTERINTHEROUND225 discussesTagmemicwork.Wecanalsonoteotherdevelopmentsp r ~ l e ltotheMalinowski-Firth-Hallidaytradition.ThePragueSchoolpioneered work on functionaldialectand theemergenceof thedifferentiationbetween thestandardlanguageandothervarieties(e.g.intermsof intellectualiza-tion)- e.g.Havranek(1932).Hjelmslev(1943)openedupimportant possibilitiesfortheinterpretationof variantswithinthelinguisticsystem when heproposedthenotionof konnotationssprog- asemioticwhoseexpres-sionsystemisanothersemioticsystem,Thesepossibilitiesweretakenup byMartin(e.g.,1985)inasystemicalternativetotheHalliday-Hasan registermodel(seeSection2.3).IntheSovietUnion,Bakhtin(1986)also developedanotionof functionalvarieties,whichhecalledspeechgenres. Ithasinfluencedgenretheorywithinsocialsemiotics.Withincomputa-tionallinguisticsratherthanlinguistics,functionalvarietyhascometobe recognizedundertheheadingofsublanguage(seeKitteredgeand Lehrberger1981;Kitteredge1983).'Sublanguage'hasplayedarolein particularinmachinetranslation.Whilethetaskoftranslatingtextin generalisdauntinglycomplex,thetaskoftranslatingweatherforecasts, technicaldocumentationwithinaparticularfield,andthelikecanbe manageable. 2.Thesemioticspacein which register islocated Registersreflectonefundamentalaspectoftheoverallorganizationof languageincontext.Toexploreregisterandregistervariationfurther,it willbeusefultoreviewthedimensionsofthisoverallorganization:see Figure11. 2.Thiswillmakeitpossibletoexploredifferentwaysof inter-preting registerstheoreticallyand alsotospecifythetheoreticalsignificance theyderivefromthelocationintheoveralltheory.Thelanguagein contextcomplexisorganizedgloballyalongthedimensionsof stratification (ordersofsymbolicabstractionrelatedbyrealization),metafu.nctional diversification(modesofmeaning),andpotentiality(thedimensionfrom potentialtoinstantialthroughinstantiation- fromsystemtotext;not showninthediagram).Thisyieldsasetofstratalsubsystems- context and,withinlanguage,semantics,lexicogrammar,andphonology/ graphology.Eachstratalsubsystemmanifeststhesamebasicdimensionsof organization- axis,delicacyandrank.Iwillcallthisorganization'fractal' simplybecauseitconstitutesthe basicprincipleof intra-stratalorganization thatismanifestedindifferentstratalenvironments. LetusstartwiththeglobaldimensionsoforganizationinSection2.1 andthenturntothosethatarelocaltoeachstratalsubsystem,thefractal ones,inSection2.2.Thesedimensionsdeterminetheoverallsemiotic spaceof languageincontext- theuniverseofmeaning.Theimportant questionwecanthenask. ishowregisterexpandsorconstrainsthespace - Section2.3. 224CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN anotherimportantissue:thenotionof'register'isnotanisolated'thing'; itisatheoreticalconstructthatismeaningfulrelativetotheoveralltheory Itispari:of.Asthesystemic-functionaltheory' of languageincontexthas' expandedsincetheearly1960s,so'register'has beenrecontextualized.For instance,nowthatideologyisbeginningtobecoveredmoreexplicitlyby thetheoryitisbecomingpossibletorelateregistertoideology(cf.de Beaugrande,thisvolume:Section4;Hunston,thisvolume;Martinetal. 1988)forinstanceintermsofdifferentialaccesstoregistersandtheir differentsocialvalues(seefurtherSection3.1.2below).Thisdoesnotin itselfmeanthatregisterhaschangedorhastochange- merelythatits contexthasexpandedastheoverallmodelhasexpandedsothatitispossi-bletoworkouttheoreticalconsequencesinnewdomains.Intheoriessuch astheglossematic,stratificationalandsystemicones,theoreticalconstructs derivetheirsignificancefromtheirplacementrelativetootherconstructs. Therehas,then,beenconsiderabletheoreticaldevelopmentofregister theorysincetheearly1960s.Andithastakenplaceininteractionwith ongoingdescriptivework.Onemightconclude,asdeBeaugrandedoes, thatthereisabiastowardspractical-descriptiveresearchovertheoretical interpretationandthat'register'needsmoretheory.Incontrast,Iwould beinclinedtoemphasizetheneedforextensiveanddetaileddescriptions ofregisters:wenowhavethetheoreticalresourcesforundertakingsuch studiesand alsothecomputationaltools(uptoapoint,asalways:westill urgentlyneedtobringparserstobearonlargequantitiesof text).Atthe sametime,theoryanddescriptiondevelopininteractionandfurther, extensivedescriptiveworkwillcreatenewdemandsontheoryanda numberof theoreticalissuescanonlybesettledwithabroaderdescriptive base. Thechaptersinthisbookmakevariousvaluablecontributionstowards thedevelopment" ofourtheoreticalanddescriptiveuO:derstandingof 'register'.Theyaregroupedunderfiveheadings- practiceandtheory, controlling and changing ideologies,theroleof metaphor:grammaticaland lexical,quantitativeevidenceforregisteranalysis;andcomputerapplica-tions- whichrangeparticularcriticalaspectsofthelinguisticsystemin relationtoregister(grammaticalmetaphor;ideology)togeneralissuesof theory,applicationandmethodology.Inthisfinalchapter,Ishalltryto relatetotheother contributionsin another,complementary way berelating registertothegeneralsystemic-functionaltheoryoflanguageincontext andthedimensionsthat definethesemioticspaceof language.Ishalliden-tifythepointsthataredeveloped,illustratedandchallengedinthispresent bookinparticularbutalsomoregenerallyinkeycontributionstoregister analysissuchasGhadessy(1988). Recognitionof registeroutsidesystemic1unctionallinguistics Sincetheorientationinmydiscussionissystemic-functional,itisworth emphasizing relatedwork in other traditions.DeBeaugrande(thisvolume) REGISTERINTHEROUND225 discussesTagmemicwork.Wecanalsonoteotherdevelopmentsp r ~ l e ltotheMalinowski-Firth-Hallidaytradition.ThePragueSchoolpioneered work on functionaldialectand theemergenceof thedifferentiationbetween thestandardlanguageandothervarieties(e.g.intermsof intellectualiza-tion)- e.g.Havranek(1932).Hjelmslev(1943)openedupimportant possibilitiesfortheinterpretationof variantswithinthelinguisticsystem when heproposedthenotionof konnotationssprog- asemioticwhoseexpres-sionsystemisanothersemioticsystem,Thesepossibilitiesweretakenup byMartin(e.g.,1985)inasystemicalternativetotheHalliday-Hasan registermodel(seeSection2.3).IntheSovietUnion,Bakhtin(1986)also developedanotionof functionalvarieties,whichhecalledspeechgenres. Ithasinfluencedgenretheorywithinsocialsemiotics.Withincomputa-tionallinguisticsratherthanlinguistics,functionalvarietyhascometobe recognizedundertheheadingofsublanguage(seeKitteredgeand Lehrberger1981;Kitteredge1983).'Sublanguage'hasplayedarolein particularinmachinetranslation.Whilethetaskoftranslatingtextin generalisdauntinglycomplex,thetaskoftranslatingweatherforecasts, technicaldocumentationwithinaparticularfield,andthelikecanbe manageable. 2.Thesemioticspacein which register islocated Registersreflectonefundamentalaspectoftheoverallorganizationof languageincontext.Toexploreregisterandregistervariationfurther,it willbeusefultoreviewthedimensionsofthisoverallorganization:see Figure11. 2.Thiswillmakeitpossibletoexploredifferentwaysof inter-preting registerstheoreticallyand alsotospecifythetheoreticalsignificance theyderivefromthelocationintheoveralltheory.Thelanguagein contextcomplexisorganizedgloballyalongthedimensionsof stratification (ordersofsymbolicabstractionrelatedbyrealization),metafu.nctional diversification(modesofmeaning),andpotentiality(thedimensionfrom potentialtoinstantialthroughinstantiation- fromsystemtotext;not showninthediagram).Thisyieldsasetofstratalsubsystems- context and,withinlanguage,semantics,lexicogrammar,andphonology/ graphology.Eachstratalsubsystemmanifeststhesamebasicdimensionsof organization- axis,delicacyandrank.Iwillcallthisorganization'fractal' simplybecauseitconstitutesthe basicprincipleof intra-stratalorganization thatismanifestedindifferentstratalenvironments. LetusstartwiththeglobaldimensionsoforganizationinSection2.1 andthenturntothosethatarelocaltoeachstratalsubsystem,thefractal ones,inSection2.2.Thesedimensionsdeterminetheoverallsemiotic spaceof languageincontext- theuniverseofmeaning.Theimportant questionwecanthenask. ishowregisterexpandsorconstrainsthespace - Section2.3. 226CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN (j) global organization metafuJlcliUlltll d i versi fi ca t iun (iDfractalorganization (manifestationoffundamental intra-stratalorganizationin differentstratalenvironments) Figure11.2Globalandfracta!dimensionsof organization 2.1Theglobaldimensions Theglobaldimensionsarestratification(Section2.1.1),metafunctional diversification(Section2.1. 2),andpotentiality(Section2.1. 3). 2.1.1Stratification Languageincontextisinterpretedasasystemofsystemsorderedin symbolicabstraction.Thatis,thesesystemsarestratified.Eachsystemhas itsowninternalorganization(seeSection2.2)butitisrelatedtoother systemsinarealizationalchain:itrealizesahighersystem(unlessitisthe highestsystem)anditisrealizedbyalowerone(unlessitisthelowest system).Thischainof inter-stratalrealizationsbridgesthegapbetweenthe semioticinhigh-levelculturalmeaningsandthematerial,eitherinspeak-ingorinwriting,throughaseriesof intermediatestrata.Wecandrawa basicstratallinebetweencontextandlanguageandothersemioticsystems thatareembeddedinit:seeFigure11.3.Asfarastherecognitionand interpretationofregisterareconcerned,itis,orcourse,criticalthat languageisinterpreted'within'context. (i)Contextcoversbothcontextof situationandcontextof culture(forthe relationshipbetweenthetwo,seeSections3.1.2and6).Howeveritis organized,itisclearthatcontextisthelocusofthesignificanceorvalue giventoregisters.Rightatthebeginningofworkonregister,contextof situation wastheplacewherearegister'scontextualsignificancewasstated intermsof field,tenor,and modevalues;andin Martin's work ithasbeen REGISTERINTHEROUND 227 semantics Figure11.3Stratificationof languageincontext furtherstratifiedtoincludegenreasone'plane'(seeSection2.3below). (ii)Languageisastratifiedsemioticsystem'embedded'incontext.Itis typicallyinterpretedastristratalinsystemictheory- [discourse]semantics, lexicogrammar,andphonology(Igraphology).Semanticsandlexicogram-martogetherformthetwocontentstrataoflanguage.Theystandina naturalrelationshiptooneanother(Halliday,1985a),whichisimportant torememberwhenweembarkoninterpretationsof'register'(seeSection 4)anddescriptionsof registers(seeSection7.1).Thesystemof expression (phonologyorgraphology)is,incontrast,largelyconventionalrelativeto lexicogrammar. Semanticsisthelinguisticinter-leveltocontext;itisthewayintothe linguisticsystemwherecontextcanbesemanticized(seeHalliday,1973). Sincesemanticshasthestatusof inter-level,itisthelinguisticsystemthat 226CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN (j) global organization metafuJlcliUlltll d i versi fi ca t iun (iDfractalorganization (manifestationoffundamental intra-stratalorganizationin differentstratalenvironments) Figure11.2Globalandfracta!dimensionsof organization 2.1Theglobaldimensions Theglobaldimensionsarestratification(Section2.1.1),metafunctional diversification(Section2.1. 2),andpotentiality(Section2.1. 3). 2.1.1Stratification Languageincontextisinterpretedasasystemofsystemsorderedin symbolicabstraction.Thatis,thesesystemsarestratified.Eachsystemhas itsowninternalorganization(seeSection2.2)butitisrelatedtoother systemsinarealizationalchain:itrealizesahighersystem(unlessitisthe highestsystem)anditisrealizedbyalowerone(unlessitisthelowest system).Thischainof inter-stratalrealizationsbridgesthegapbetweenthe semioticinhigh-levelculturalmeaningsandthematerial,eitherinspeak-ingorinwriting,throughaseriesof intermediatestrata.Wecandrawa basicstratallinebetweencontextandlanguageandothersemioticsystems thatareembeddedinit:seeFigure11.3.Asfarastherecognitionand interpretationofregisterareconcerned,itis,orcourse,criticalthat languageisinterpreted'within'context. (i)Contextcoversbothcontextof situationandcontextof culture(forthe relationshipbetweenthetwo,seeSections3.1.2and6).Howeveritis organized,itisclearthatcontextisthelocusofthesignificanceorvalue giventoregisters.Rightatthebeginningofworkonregister,contextof situation wastheplacewherearegister'scontextualsignificancewasstated intermsof field,tenor,and modevalues;andin Martin's work ithasbeen REGISTERINTHEROUND227 semantics Figure11.3Stratificationof languageincontext furtherstratifiedtoincludegenreasone'plane'(seeSection2.3below). (ii)Languageisastratifiedsemioticsystem'embedded'incontext.Itis typicallyinterpretedastristratalinsystemictheory- [discourse]semantics, lexicogrammar,andphonology(Igraphology).Semanticsandlexicogram-martogetherformthetwocontentstrataoflanguage.Theystandina naturalrelationshiptooneanother(Halliday,1985a),whichisimportant torememberwhenweembarkoninterpretationsof'register'(seeSection 4)anddescriptionsof registers(seeSection7.1).Thesystemof expression (phonologyorgraphology)is,incontrast,largelyconventionalrelativeto lexicogrammar. Semanticsisthelinguisticinter-leveltocontext;itisthewayintothe linguisticsystemwherecontextcanbesemanticized(seeHalliday,1973). Sincesemanticshasthestatusof inter-level,itisthelinguisticsystemthat 228CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN hastheprimaryresponsibilityforaccommodatingvaryingcontextual demandsonlanguage:onepossiblereflectionofthisistheemergenceof semanticsystemsspecifictoparticularcontextsof situation,apoly systemic semantics- semanticsystemsrepresentingdifferentregisters(seeSection 4.1below).Itisalsoimportanttonotethatthebasicsemanticunitis languagefunctioningincontextortext(e.g.,HallidayandHasan1976) - notaunitsuchasapredicationorpropositionderivedfromthegram-mar(asinformalsemantics).Consequently,itistheoreticallyveryclear thatregistersarenotboundtotheunitsof grammar;theyaresemantically pervasivefromthemacro(wholetexts)tothemicro(semanticunits directlyrealizedbylexicogrammaticalones). Lexicogrammaristheresourceforwordingmeanings,forrealizing meaningsintermsof grammaticalstructuresandlexicalitems.Relativeto semantics,itcanbeseenasamorehighlygeneralizedsystemof content: itisatoneremovefromcontextandthecontextualdiversificationthatis thesourceofdifferentregisters.Semanticswill,amongotherthings, mediate betweencontextualdiversityandlexicogrammaticalgeneralization. Atthesametime,sincelexicogrammarissemanticallynatural,thetwo contentstrataprovideuswithdifferentstratalanglesonregisters- wecan moveineitherfromsemanticsorfromlexicogrammar(seeSections4and 7.1below).Lexicogrammarcomprisesbothgrammarandlexis- lexisis interpretedasmostdelicategrammar(fromHalliday1961,onwards;see Cross,thisvolume).Thisposesinterestingissuesforregisteranalysis particularlysincecomputationaltoolsforanalyzingthelargetextsamples typicallyneededtocharacterizeregistersaremoreaccessibleforlexis(cf. Section7.2below).Italsomakesittheoreticallyveryclearthatanygram-maticalvariationacrossregisters(e.g.,variationinfavouredprocesstypes) willbemanifestedmoredelicatelyaslexicalvariationandthat lexical variationoftenderivesfromgrammaticalvariation. Textis,asnoted,thebasicsemanticunitofafunctionaltheoryof language- languagefunctioningincontext.Butinastrataltheory,the multistratalimplicationsareveryclear:atextisamulti-strata!processin thesensethatitiscontextualized,i.e.itisalsoaprocessofcontextual choices,anditisworded,i.e.itisalsoaprocessoflexicogrammatical choices. 2.1.2Functionaldiversification Bothcontextof situationandthecontentstrataof language,semanticsand lexicogrammar,arefunctionallydiversified:thatis,therearedifferent modesof contextualandlinguisticmeaning.Thecontextualmodes- field, tenor,andmode(tousethecurrentsetofterms)- wereidentifiedfirst, discussedinHalliday,MacintoshandStrevens(1964).(Theyrepresenta re-interpretationofFirth's,1957,scheme.)Havingembarkedona systemicdescriptionofEnglish,Hallidaydiscoveredthatsystemsformed threeclustersand,toexplainthisphenomenon,hesetupthethree metafunctionsof systemic-functionaltheory- ideational,interpersonal,and textual(Halliday1967/8;1978;1985a).Hethenfoundthattherewere REGISTERINTHEROUND229 correlationsbetweencontextofsituationandlanguagealongthelinesof thefunctionaldiversification:fieldandtheideationalmetafunction correlate,tenorandtheinterpersonalone,andmodeandthetextualone (Halliday1978). Likelanguage,afunctionalvarietyof language,aregister,ismultifunc-tional- anyregisterissimultaneouslyideational,interpersonal,and textual.AndHalliday'sfindingmeansthatitispossibletoidentifywhich aspectsofcontextofsituationwillinfluenceandbeinfluencedbywhich aspectsof aregister:theideationalresourcesof aregisterconstrueafield, theinterpersonalonesatenor,andthetextualonesamode(seeHalliday 1978;HallidayandHasan1985;Martin,inpress).Themodedistinction betweenwrittenandspokenclearlycorrelateswithtextualsystemssuchas THEME,ELLIPSIS/SUBSTITUTION,pndCONJUNCTION;butitisalso realizedsomewhatmoreindirectlytoachievedifferenttypesof'informa-tionchunking'- lexicaldensity(Ure1971;Halliday1985b),deployment ofCLAUSECOMPLEXINGandgrammaticalmetaphor(Halliday1985b). Asfarastheoverallstagingof texts- withinaregisterisconcerned,all threecontextualaspectsarelikelytoplayarole.Buttheytendtowards differentmodesofsyntagmaticorganization:seee.g.Martin(1992)on tenor-orientedinterpersonalprosodiesrunningthroughatextcontrasting withmoresegmentalfield-orientedorganizationrealizedthroughideational resources. 2.1.3Potentiality Stratificationandfunctionaldiversificationgivethesemioticspaceheight andbreadth,asitwere;potentialityintroducesakindoftimetogiveus asemioticspace-time.Asithas beendescribeduptonow,thelanguage-in-contextcomplexisanatemporalresource:itissimplyaspecificationof informationthatcanbeprocessedindifferentways.Thisisthecontextual and linguisticpotential- whatcanbemeantasHalliday(1973;1977)puts it. 2Itisneutralwithrespecttogeneration,understandingoranyother processusingtheresources:thepotentialisinstantiated(oractualized)by differentprocesses- fromwhatcanbemeant,variousoptionsareactually meant.Thetwomajortypesof instantiationaregenerationandunderstan-ding(analysis).Theyinstantiatethesamepotentialandtheresultisan instancefromthepotential.Languagefunctioningincontext,text,canbe:: viewedeitherasaprocess,unfoldingasaninstantiationofthepotential, orasaproduct,acompletedinstantiationofthesystem. Inageneralaccountof language,allthreephaseshavetobeinview-potential,instantiation,andinstance- althoughlinguistshavetendedto focuseitheronthepotentialor theinstantial,leaving processesof instantia-tiontocomputationallinguists(cf.MatthiessenandBateman1991,for issuesofinstantiation).Iwilladdressthesignificanceofpotentialityto registeranalysisinSection6.1below.Butaverycentralpointisthatas avarietyof language,aregisterembodiesallthreephasesofpotentiality; andthisis,amongotherthings,thekeytotheroleof textininstantiating andchangingaregistersystem.AlongthewaytoSection6.1,Iwilltake 228CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN hastheprimaryresponsibilityforaccommodatingvaryingcontextual demandsonlanguage:onepossiblereflectionofthisistheemergenceof semanticsystemsspecifictoparticularcontextsof situation,apoly systemic semantics- semanticsystemsrepresentingdifferentregisters(seeSection 4.1below).Itisalsoimportanttonotethatthebasicsemanticunitis languagefunctioningincontextortext(e.g.,HallidayandHasan1976) - notaunitsuchasapredicationorpropositionderivedfromthegram-mar(asinformalsemantics).Consequently,itistheoreticallyveryclear thatregistersarenotboundtotheunitsof grammar;theyaresemantically pervasivefromthemacro(wholetexts)tothemicro(semanticunits directlyrealizedbylexicogrammaticalones). Lexicogrammaristheresourceforwordingmeanings,forrealizing meaningsintermsof grammaticalstructuresandlexicalitems.Relativeto semantics,itcanbeseenasamorehighlygeneralizedsystemof content: itisatoneremovefromcontextandthecontextualdiversificationthatis thesourceofdifferentregisters.Semanticswill,amongotherthings, mediate betweencontextualdiversityandlexicogrammaticalgeneralization. Atthesametime,sincelexicogrammarissemanticallynatural,thetwo contentstrataprovideuswithdifferentstratalanglesonregisters- wecan moveineitherfromsemanticsorfromlexicogrammar(seeSections4and 7.1below).Lexicogrammarcomprisesbothgrammarandlexis- lexisis interpretedasmostdelicategrammar(fromHalliday1961,onwards;see Cross,thisvolume).Thisposesinterestingissuesforregisteranalysis particularlysincecomputationaltoolsforanalyzingthelargetextsamples typicallyneededtocharacterizeregistersaremoreaccessibleforlexis(cf. Section7.2below).Italsomakesittheoreticallyveryclearthatanygram-maticalvariationacrossregisters(e.g.,variationinfavouredprocesstypes) willbemanifestedmoredelicatelyaslexicalvariationandthat lexical variationoftenderivesfromgrammaticalvariation. Textis,asnoted,thebasicsemanticunitofafunctionaltheoryof language- languagefunctioningincontext.Butinastrataltheory,the multistratalimplicationsareveryclear:atextisamulti-strata!processin thesensethatitiscontextualized,i.e.itisalsoaprocessofcontextual choices,anditisworded,i.e.itisalsoaprocessoflexicogrammatical choices. 2.1.2Functionaldiversification Bothcontextof situationandthecontentstrataof language,semanticsand lexicogrammar,arefunctionallydiversified:thatis,therearedifferent modesof contextualandlinguisticmeaning.Thecontextualmodes- field, tenor,andmode(tousethecurrentsetofterms)- wereidentifiedfirst, discussedinHalliday,MacintoshandStrevens(1964).(Theyrepresenta re-interpretationofFirth's,1957,scheme.)Havingembarkedona systemicdescriptionofEnglish,Hallidaydiscoveredthatsystemsformed threeclustersand,toexplainthisphenomenon,hesetupthethree metafunctionsof systemic-functionaltheory- ideational,interpersonal,and textual(Halliday1967/8;1978;1985a).Hethenfoundthattherewere REGISTERINTHEROUND229 correlationsbetweencontextofsituationandlanguagealongthelinesof thefunctionaldiversification:fieldandtheideationalmetafunction correlate,tenorandtheinterpersonalone,andmodeandthetextualone (Halliday1978). Likelanguage,afunctionalvarietyof language,aregister,ismultifunc-tional- anyregisterissimultaneouslyideational,interpersonal,and textual.AndHalliday'sfindingmeansthatitispossibletoidentifywhich aspectsofcontextofsituationwillinfluenceandbeinfluencedbywhich aspectsof aregister:theideationalresourcesof aregisterconstrueafield, theinterpersonalonesatenor,andthetextualonesamode(seeHalliday 1978;HallidayandHasan1985;Martin,inpress).Themodedistinction betweenwrittenandspokenclearlycorrelateswithtextualsystemssuchas THEME,ELLIPSIS/SUBSTITUTION,pndCONJUNCTION;butitisalso realizedsomewhatmoreindirectlytoachievedifferenttypesof'informa-tionchunking'- lexicaldensity(Ure1971;Halliday1985b),deployment ofCLAUSECOMPLEXINGandgrammaticalmetaphor(Halliday1985b). Asfarastheoverallstagingof texts- withinaregisterisconcerned,all threecontextualaspectsarelikelytoplayarole.Buttheytendtowards differentmodesofsyntagmaticorganization:seee.g.Martin(1992)on tenor-orientedinterpersonalprosodiesrunningthroughatextcontrasting withmoresegmentalfield-orientedorganizationrealizedthroughideational resources. 2.1.3Potentiality Stratificationandfunctionaldiversificationgivethesemioticspaceheight andbreadth,asitwere;potentialityintroducesakindoftimetogiveus asemioticspace-time.Asithas beendescribeduptonow,thelanguage-in-contextcomplexisanatemporalresource:itissimplyaspecificationof informationthatcanbeprocessedindifferentways.Thisisthecontextual and linguisticpotential- whatcanbemeantasHalliday(1973;1977)puts it. 2Itisneutralwithrespecttogeneration,understandingoranyother processusingtheresources:thepotentialisinstantiated(oractualized)by differentprocesses- fromwhatcanbemeant,variousoptionsareactually meant.Thetwomajortypesof instantiationaregenerationandunderstan-ding(analysis).Theyinstantiatethesamepotentialandtheresultisan instancefromthepotential.Languagefunctioningincontext,text,canbe:: viewedeitherasaprocess,unfoldingasaninstantiationofthepotential, orasaproduct,acompletedinstantiationofthesystem. Inageneralaccountof language,allthreephaseshavetobeinview-potential,instantiation,andinstance- althoughlinguistshavetendedto focuseitheronthepotentialor theinstantial,leaving processesof instantia-tiontocomputationallinguists(cf.MatthiessenandBateman1991,for issuesofinstantiation).Iwilladdressthesignificanceofpotentialityto registeranalysisinSection6.1below.Butaverycentralpointisthatas avarietyof language,aregisterembodiesallthreephasesofpotentiality; andthisis,amongotherthings,thekeytotheroleof textininstantiating andchangingaregistersystem.AlongthewaytoSection6.1,Iwilltake 230CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN uptheroleofprobabilitiesinthepotentialinregisteranalysis(Section 3.2.2(iandinstantiationinthehistoryofatext(Section5.1). 2.2The fractaldimensions The globaldimensions place thestrata,metafunctions,and phases of poten-tialityrelativeto one another and show how they interact.In addition,each stratum is organized internally;it has intra-stratal organization.It would be perfectlypossiblethatthefundamentaldimensionsofeachstratumwere quitedistinctandthisisthewaytheytendedtoemergeingenerative linguisticsalthough thepictureischanging withapproachessuchasPollard andSag's(1987)Head-DrivenPhraseStructureGrammar.However,in systemic-functionaltheory,thedifferentstratahaveallbeeninterpreted accordingtothesamefundamentaldimensionsandthesameistrueof Lamb'sstratificationaltheoryandreprese'ntation.Thereisonegeneralized intra-stratalorganization,whichismanifestedindifferentstratal environments;this organization iswhat Icallfractal.This isnot tosaythat thestrataareidenticalintheirinternalorganization- therearecertainly differences(suchasthepossibilityof rankshift),buttheyaretobeseen against the background of the general principles of intra-stratal organization. The fractaldimensionsareaxis(paradigmaticlsyntagmatic),delicacyand rank.Theyarewell-knownanddonotneedanygeneralcomments.But Iwillcommentbrieflyontheirsignificanceforregister.Axially, paradigmaticorganizationisprimary,representedbythesystemnetwork, wheresystemicoptionsprovidetheenvironmentforsyntagmaticspecifica-tions.Thisisabsolutelycrucialtotheinterpretationofregistersinceit meansthatregisterhastobeinterpretedinsystemicterms- asvariation inthesystem- whichwearriveatthroughsyntagmaticanalysis(e.g., analysisof grammaticalstructures,grammaticalitems,andlexicalitems). :/( Italsohasotherconsequences,suchasthepossibilityofspecifyinga registerintermsofsystemicprobabilities(seeSection3.2.2(i.3 Theprimacyof paradigmaticorganizationalsoopensupthepossibility ofintegratinganotherdimension- delicacy.Thisistheorderingof systemsinthesystemnetworkfrommostgeneraltomostspecific.Thisis alsooffundamentalimportancetotheinterpretationofregistersinceit meansthatregisterscanrelatetothegeneralsystemintermsof delicacy (cf.Section3.2.2(ii)below)andthatwecancharacterizeregistersat -\V,various ofdelicacy. (cf.Section7.1it.isthekey 1\tothe'relatlOnbetweenleXISandgrammar- leXISasmostdehcategram-mar,alreadymentionedabove:seeCross(thisvolume). Asfarasrankisconcerned,therearetwoimportantpoints(i)Justas aregisterspanstheotherdimensionsoforganization,itspansrank.In particularitisworthnotingthatitissemanticallypervasivefromthe macrotothemicro(cf.Leckie-Tarry,thisvolume).(ii)Thegrammatical andphonologicalrankscalesareclearlygeneralizedbutitseemsquite likelythatdifferentregisters,ordifferentfamiliesof registers,operatewith REGISTERINTHEROUND231 differentsemanticrankscaleof thetypepositedbySinclairandCoulthard (1975)forclass-roomdiscourse:seeSections3.2.2(iii)and4.2below. 2.3Construingregister- theoreticalalternatives:registerialvariationvs.genreplane We haveseen,then,whattheoverallsemioticspaceof languagein context islikefromasystemic-functionalpointof view.Howdoesregisterfitin? Leckie-Tarry(thisvolume)providesadiscussionofregisterandgenreand thedifferenttheoreticalpositionstheyrepresentbutIwillreviewtheposi-tionsspecificallyrelativetotheoveralltheoreticalspaceinthehopethat thiswillfurtherilluminate thepositions.Having considered thedimensions thatdefinedthe'theoreticalspace' weusetoconstruelanguageincontext, wecannowexplorealternativewaysof construingregister.Forinstance, wecanaskwhetherregisterislocatedstratally,axially,etc.relativetothe theoreticalinterpretation of the linguisticsystem 'presentedsofar.However registerisconstruedtheoretically,itseemsquiteclearthatitisanaspect, ofamodeoforganizationthatexpandstheoverallsemioticspace:that . modeof organizationisanewwayof makingmeaningsbygivingcontextualvaluetovariationinthelinguisticsystem.Thatis,inadditiontothesystemitself being usedto makemeaning,variationsin thesystemalsocreatemeaning.)t Atthesametime,eachregisterembodiesakindofconstraintonwhat meaningsarelikelytobemade.But thereisnothingcontradictoryinthis: thestratificationof contentintosemanticsandlexicogrammar issignificant expansionoftheoverallmeaning-makingpotentialbutatthesametime. thesemanticsconstrainsthelexicogrammarintermsofwhatarelikely *-meanings.Registerialconstraintsembodyinformation- informationabout diversificationacrossdifferentcontextsandinformationcarriedbythe systemitself. So how can theexpansion of theoverallsemioticspacebeaccounted for? Withinsystemiclinguistics,therehave,infact,beentwoapproachesto modelling'register'(seeFigure11.4): (i)Registerisinterpretedintermsof aseparatedimensionof variation withinthesystem- functionalvariation or register variation (Halliday, MacintoshandStrevens1964;Hasan1973;Halliday1978;Halliday andHasan1985).Registeristhusanameof akindof variation.(cf. dialectasamassterm).Thenotionofvariationisprimary.A 'register'isthena(nidealized)locationalongthisdimension,justas asynchronicsystemisalocationalongthedimensionofdiachronic change(phylogenesis)oradialectisalocationalongthedimensionof dialectalvariation.Buta'register'isnot,inthefirstinstance,located anywhereinparticularinlanguagealongotherdimensionsalthough thereareprincipledtendencies- it isavarietyof language,notapart of it .. Languageisthentheassemblageof locationsalongthedimen-sionofregistervariation. 4 (ii)Registerisinterpretedintermsofthedimensionofstratificationin 230CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN uptheroleofprobabilitiesinthepotentialinregisteranalysis(Section 3.2.2(iandinstantiationinthehistoryofatext(Section5.1). 2.2The fractaldimensions The globaldimensions place thestrata,metafunctions,and phases of poten-tialityrelativeto one another and show how they interact.In addition,each stratum is organized internally;it has intra-stratal organization.It would be perfectlypossiblethatthefundamentaldimensionsofeachstratumwere quitedistinctandthisisthewaytheytendedtoemergeingenerative linguisticsalthough thepictureischanging withapproachessuchasPollard andSag's(1987)Head-DrivenPhraseStructureGrammar.However,in systemic-functionaltheory,thedifferentstratahaveallbeeninterpreted accordingtothesamefundamentaldimensionsandthesameistrueof Lamb'sstratificationaltheoryandreprese'ntation.Thereisonegeneralized intra-stratalorganization,whichismanifestedindifferentstratal environments;this organization iswhat Icallfractal.This isnot tosaythat thestrataareidenticalintheirinternalorganization- therearecertainly differences(suchasthepossibilityof rankshift),buttheyaretobeseen against the background of the general principles of intra-stratal organization. The fractaldimensionsareaxis(paradigmaticlsyntagmatic),delicacyand rank.Theyarewell-knownanddonotneedanygeneralcomments.But Iwillcommentbrieflyontheirsignificanceforregister.Axially, paradigmaticorganizationisprimary,representedbythesystemnetwork, wheresystemicoptionsprovidetheenvironmentforsyntagmaticspecifica-tions.Thisisabsolutelycrucialtotheinterpretationofregistersinceit meansthatregisterhastobeinterpretedinsystemicterms- asvariation inthesystem- whichwearriveatthroughsyntagmaticanalysis(e.g., analysisof grammaticalstructures,grammaticalitems,andlexicalitems). :/( Italsohasotherconsequences,suchasthepossibilityofspecifyinga registerintermsofsystemicprobabilities(seeSection3.2.2(i.3 Theprimacyof paradigmaticorganizationalsoopensupthepossibility ofintegratinganotherdimension- delicacy.Thisistheorderingof systemsinthesystemnetworkfrommostgeneraltomostspecific.Thisis alsooffundamentalimportancetotheinterpretationofregistersinceit meansthatregisterscanrelatetothegeneralsystemintermsof delicacy (cf.Section3.2.2(ii)below)andthatwecancharacterizeregistersat -\V,various ofdelicacy. (cf.Section7.1it.isthekey 1\tothe'relatlOnbetweenleXISandgrammar- leXISasmostdehcategram-mar,alreadymentionedabove:seeCross(thisvolume). Asfarasrankisconcerned,therearetwoimportantpoints(i)Justas aregisterspanstheotherdimensionsoforganization,itspansrank.In particularitisworthnotingthatitissemanticallypervasivefromthe macrotothemicro(cf.Leckie-Tarry,thisvolume).(ii)Thegrammatical andphonologicalrankscalesareclearlygeneralizedbutitseemsquite likelythatdifferentregisters,ordifferentfamiliesof registers,operatewith REGISTERINTHEROUND231 differentsemanticrankscaleof thetypepositedbySinclairandCoulthard (1975)forclass-roomdiscourse:seeSections3.2.2(iii)and4.2below. 2.3Construingregister- theoreticalalternatives:registerialvariationvs.genreplane We haveseen,then,whattheoverallsemioticspaceof languagein context islikefromasystemic-functionalpointof view.Howdoesregisterfitin? Leckie-Tarry(thisvolume)providesadiscussionofregisterandgenreand thedifferenttheoreticalpositionstheyrepresentbutIwillreviewtheposi-tionsspecificallyrelativetotheoveralltheoreticalspaceinthehopethat thiswillfurtherilluminate thepositions.Having considered thedimensions thatdefinedthe'theoreticalspace' weusetoconstruelanguageincontext, wecannowexplorealternativewaysof construingregister.Forinstance, wecanaskwhetherregisterislocatedstratally,axially,etc.relativetothe theoreticalinterpretation of the linguisticsystem 'presentedsofar.However registerisconstruedtheoretically,itseemsquiteclearthatitisanaspect, ofamodeoforganizationthatexpandstheoverallsemioticspace:that . modeof organizationisanewwayof makingmeaningsbygivingcontextualvaluetovariationinthelinguisticsystem.Thatis,inadditiontothesystemitself being usedto makemeaning,variationsin thesystemalsocreatemeaning.)t Atthesametime,eachregisterembodiesakindofconstraintonwhat meaningsarelikelytobemade.But thereisnothingcontradictoryinthis: thestratificationof contentintosemanticsandlexicogrammar issignificant expansionoftheoverallmeaning-makingpotentialbutatthesametime. thesemanticsconstrainsthelexicogrammarintermsofwhatarelikely *-meanings.Registerialconstraintsembodyinformation- informationabout diversificationacrossdifferentcontextsandinformationcarriedbythe systemitself. So how can theexpansion of theoverallsemioticspacebeaccounted for? Withinsystemiclinguistics,therehave,infact,beentwoapproachesto modelling'register'(seeFigure11.4): (i)Registerisinterpretedintermsof aseparatedimensionof variation withinthesystem- functionalvariation or register variation (Halliday, MacintoshandStrevens1964;Hasan1973;Halliday1978;Halliday andHasan1985).Registeristhusanameof akindof variation.(cf. dialectasamassterm).Thenotionofvariationisprimary.A 'register'isthena(nidealized)locationalongthisdimension,justas asynchronicsystemisalocationalongthedimensionofdiachronic change(phylogenesis)oradialectisalocationalongthedimensionof dialectalvariation.Buta'register'isnot,inthefirstinstance,located anywhereinparticularinlanguagealongotherdimensionsalthough thereareprincipledtendencies- it isavarietyof language,notapart of it .. Languageisthentheassemblageof locationsalongthedimen-sionofregistervariation. 4 (ii)Registerisinterpretedintermsofthedimensionofstratificationin 232CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN (ii) functional variation register 3 register 1 Figure11.4Registerasstateinfunctionalvariationorasconnotativesemiotic itsmanifestationof'planing'(duetoMartin1985,inpress,etc.). Morespecifically,itisinterpretedasa'plane'abovelanguagethatis thecontentsystemwhoseexpressionsystemiscontextofsituation, whichitself istakenasthecontentsystemwhoseexpressionislanguage (seeFigure1inLeckie-Tarry'schapterformoredetailandanother typeofdiagram).ThecriticaltheoreticalsourcehereisHjelmslev's (1943)notionof konnotationssprog- asemioticsystemwhoseexpression planeisanothersemioticsystem.Importantly,registersareinterpreted associalactionsforachievingsocialpurposes. Alternative(i)wasthefirstpositiontobedevelopedwithinsystemic linguistics.Indevelopingalternative(ii),Martinbuiltonthispositionbut heusedstratificationwithincontextrelativetolanguagetomodelregister variation:lower-stratallinguisticvariationismodelledsystemically(i.e.,as anetwork of inter-relatedchoices)atahighercontextualstratumspecifying theregisterpotentialof alanguage.Thisisoneprominentexampleof the kindof flexibilityHalliday(1980)pointsoutcharacterizessystemictheory; itisa'flexi-model',whereitispossibletoplayoffdifferentdimensions againstoneanother.Butthetwopositionsaregenuinelyalternativeways of modellingregister;theyarenotpartof thetotalpictureintendedtobe combined.However,thereisnoapriorireasonwhytheycan'tbeinter-pretedascomplementarities. Alternative(i)hasoftenbeencalledtheregistermodelandalternative (ii)thegenremodel.However,thereispotentialterminologicalconfusion atthispointsinceregisterandgenrehavebeenusedindifferentwaysby proponentsof thetwomodels.ThedifferencesaresetoutinTableiLl. Martinthusrenamed'contextofsituation'registerandintroducedgenre asanewtheoreticalterm.5 Itisimportanttonotethatgenreisnota separatetheoreticalterminalternative(i).Onereasonthetermwas REGISTERINTHEROUND Table11.1 register genre Alternative(i)- Halliday& Hasan functionalvariationof language [nodirectequivalentin(ii)J - aregisterisa'location'along thisdimensionof variation nota theoreticalterm;either synonymouswithregisterorusedinits moretraditionalsensewithinliterary studies Alternative(ii)- Martin firstplaneabovelanguage [=contextof situationin(i)J secondplaneabovelanguage [nodirectequivalentin(i)J 233 avoidedearlyonwassimplythatitstraditionalsensewasfartoonarrow andassociatedwithliteraryvarieties.Halliday(1978)indicateshowthis traditionaltermcanbeinterpretedaccordingtosystemic-functionaltheory but thisshouldnotbereadasanattempttosetup genreasasystemicterm alongsideregister.. Thereare,ofcourse,yetotherwaysofusingtheterms.Forinstance, Leckie-Tarry(thisvolume)notesthatgenremaybeusedtocharacterizea wholetextwhereasregister'isfrequentlyusedtorefertosectionswithina textwhicharecharacterizedbycertainlinguisticforms'.If thedifference isonlyoneofscale,itwouldseembettertotalkaboute.g.genresand macro-genres(cf.Martin1991). Therearealso,of course,yetotherterms.ThePragueSchooltermfunc-tionaldialectwasmentionedinSection1above,aswasthecomputational linguistictermsublanguage.Theformermakestheanalogywithdialect transparent.Sometimestermssuchastext/discoursetype,text/discoursetypology areusedorareusedtoglossgenreorregister.Whilethesetermshavethe advantagethattheydrawattentiontothefactthatregistervariationhas textasitsscopetheyhavethedrawbackthattheyfocusonlyon(semantic) units in theprocessof communication but register variation isalsosystemic - apropertyofthelinguisticpotential. Asfarastherecognitionofparticulartypesofregisterorgenreis concerned,itisimportanttonotethatthereis(asinsomanyotherareas of language)amoreorlesselaboratedfolktheory,whichincludesnames forvarioustypessuchasmemos,telegrams,romances.However,we cannotassumethatthesecanautomaticallybetakenoverintoalinguistic accountoftypesofregister.Martin(p.c.)hasobservedthatfolkgenres tendtobebiasedtowardsmode- towardseasilyobservableovertformat, etc.(thisisageneralfeatureoffolktaxonomiesincontrasttoscientific taxonomies,whichareoftenbasedonmorecovertcriteria:cf.Wignellet al.1987.)Thus,apartfromanyothershort-comings,thefolknotionof genretendstobefunctionallyimbalancedandthereisnoapriorireason 232CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN (ii) functional variation register 3 register 1 Figure11.4Registerasstateinfunctionalvariationorasconnotativesemiotic itsmanifestationof'planing'(duetoMartin1985,inpress,etc.). Morespecifically,itisinterpretedasa'plane'abovelanguagethatis thecontentsystemwhoseexpressionsystemiscontextofsituation, whichitself istakenasthecontentsystemwhoseexpressionislanguage (seeFigure1inLeckie-Tarry'schapterformoredetailandanother typeofdiagram).ThecriticaltheoreticalsourcehereisHjelmslev's (1943)notionof konnotationssprog- asemioticsystemwhoseexpression planeisanothersemioticsystem.Importantly,registersareinterpreted associalactionsforachievingsocialpurposes. Alternative(i)wasthefirstpositiontobedevelopedwithinsystemic linguistics.Indevelopingalternative(ii),Martinbuiltonthispositionbut heusedstratificationwithincontextrelativetolanguagetomodelregister variation:lower-stratallinguisticvariationismodelledsystemically(i.e.,as anetwork of inter-relatedchoices)atahighercontextualstratumspecifying theregisterpotentialof alanguage.Thisisoneprominentexampleof the kindof flexibilityHalliday(1980)pointsoutcharacterizessystemictheory; itisa'flexi-model',whereitispossibletoplayoffdifferentdimensions againstoneanother.Butthetwopositionsaregenuinelyalternativeways of modellingregister;theyarenotpartof thetotalpictureintendedtobe combined.However,thereisnoapriorireasonwhytheycan'tbeinter-pretedascomplementarities. Alternative(i)hasoftenbeencalledtheregistermodelandalternative (ii)thegenremodel.However,thereispotentialterminologicalconfusion atthispointsinceregisterandgenrehavebeenusedindifferentwaysby proponentsof thetwomodels.ThedifferencesaresetoutinTableiLl. Martinthusrenamed'contextofsituation'registerandintroducedgenre asanewtheoreticalterm.5 Itisimportanttonotethatgenreisnota separatetheoreticalterminalternative(i).Onereasonthetermwas REGISTERINTHEROUND Table11.1 register genre Alternative(i)- Halliday& Hasan functionalvariationof language [nodirectequivalentin(ii)J - aregisterisa'location'along thisdimensionof variation nota theoreticalterm;either synonymouswithregisterorusedinits moretraditionalsensewithinliterary studies Alternative(ii)- Martin firstplaneabovelanguage [=contextof situationin(i)J secondplaneabovelanguage [nodirectequivalentin(i)J 233 avoidedearlyonwassimplythatitstraditionalsensewasfartoonarrow andassociatedwithliteraryvarieties.Halliday(1978)indicateshowthis traditionaltermcanbeinterpretedaccordingtosystemic-functionaltheory but thisshouldnotbereadasanattempttosetup genreasasystemicterm alongsideregister.. Thereare,ofcourse,yetotherwaysofusingtheterms.Forinstance, Leckie-Tarry(thisvolume)notesthatgenremaybeusedtocharacterizea wholetextwhereasregister'isfrequentlyusedtorefertosectionswithina textwhicharecharacterizedbycertainlinguisticforms'.If thedifference isonlyoneofscale,itwouldseembettertotalkaboute.g.genresand macro-genres(cf.Martin1991). Therearealso,of course,yetotherterms.ThePragueSchooltermfunc-tionaldialectwasmentionedinSection1above,aswasthecomputational linguistictermsublanguage.Theformermakestheanalogywithdialect transparent.Sometimestermssuchastext/discoursetype,text/discoursetypology areusedorareusedtoglossgenreorregister.Whilethesetermshavethe advantagethattheydrawattentiontothefactthatregistervariationhas textasitsscopetheyhavethedrawbackthattheyfocusonlyon(semantic) units in theprocessof communication but register variation isalsosystemic - apropertyofthelinguisticpotential. Asfarastherecognitionofparticulartypesofregisterorgenreis concerned,itisimportanttonotethatthereis(asinsomanyotherareas of language)amoreorlesselaboratedfolktheory,whichincludesnames forvarioustypessuchasmemos,telegrams,romances.However,we cannotassumethatthesecanautomaticallybetakenoverintoalinguistic accountoftypesofregister.Martin(p.c.)hasobservedthatfolkgenres tendtobebiasedtowardsmode- towardseasilyobservableovertformat, etc.(thisisageneralfeatureoffolktaxonomiesincontrasttoscientific taxonomies,whichareoftenbasedonmorecovertcriteria:cf.Wignellet al.1987.)Thus,apartfromanyothershort-comings,thefolknotionof genretendstobefunctionallyimbalancedandthereisnoapriorireason 234CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN whyweshouldtakeitasourpointof departureindevelopinganaccount ofregistertypes.6 In whatfollows,itwillonlybepossibletofollowthroughone alternative systematicallyandIwillusealternative(i)sinceitraisesvariousissues about variationasan independenttheoreticaldimensionthatareimportant inthecontextof thisbook.Anumberof findingsfromonealternativecan bere-interpretedintermsof theotherandIwilldosowhereappropriate. The genremodel has been tremendouslyinfluentialand been usedin many studies,inparticularineducationallinguisticsandsocialsemiotics.The mostrecentsummaryof themodelcanbefoundinMartin(inpress).It isreviewedcriticallyinHasan(inpress)fromthepointofviewofher theoreticalpositionandthediscussionwillbecontinuedfromthegenre model'spointof view.Sincethetopicof thisbookisvariationinlanguage andanumberof contributionsdemonstratethevalueofthisvariation,it willbeveryclearthatvariationinmetalanguageisequallyvaluable(cf. furtherSection8).Infactitiscrucial,sincetheexistenceofdifferent varietiesof systemic-functionaltheoryclarifiestheoveralltheoreticalspace. 3.Registervariation Letusexplore,then,theinterpretationofregisterasastateofthe linguisticsystemalongthedimensionof functionalvariation,or,asit has alsobeencalled,diatypicvariation.Thevariationistheprimary theoreticalabstraction- therecognitionthatthesystemisfunctionally variable- andthenotionof'register'isaconvenientsecondaryidealiza-tion- justasadialectandasynchronicsystemare.Infact,registeris explicitlygroupedwithotherkindsof variationonthesystemictheme(cf. Gregory1967;GregoryandCarol1978;Hasan1973;Halliday1978)-dialectal(includingsociolectel)andhistorical.(Wewillreturntohistoryin Section5:thereareatleastthreetypesof historytotakeintoaccount.) Thisisimportantasitinvitesustoexplorecommonwaysof modelling varietiesandtogeneralizeinsightsgainedwithonetypeofvariation(cf. Section3.2.2(ii)below).Registervariationiscomparedwithcodalvaria-tionanddialectalvariationinFigure11.5,whichisbasedonHalliday's characterizationof thesetypesof variationaccordingtotheexistenceand locationofahigher-levelconstantinrelationtowhichthereisvariation. Whatisspecificaboutregistervariation?TheanswergivenbyHalliday (e.g.,1978) has twointerconnected parts,relating to(i)contextualroleand (ii)domainofvariationwithinthelinguisticsystem: (i)Upwards:incontrasttoothertypesof variation,registervariationhas no higher-levelconstant.Itshigher-stratalsignificancepertainsprecisely todiversificationincontextofsituation- toselectionswithinfield, tenorandmode.Thatis,thefunctionof registervariationiscontex- tual,inthesenseof contextof situation.(Incontrast,dialectalvariation hasahigher-levelconstantwithinlanguageandisarealizationof the socialstructureofaculture). REGISTERINTHEROUND (ii!higher-level C01'lstallt 235 context (i)nohigher-level 'constant language Figure11.5Differenttypesof variationaccordingtopresenceand locationof constant (ii)Withinthelinguisticsystem:sincethefunctionof registervariation iscontextual,thatlinguisticstratumwhichistheinterfacetothe contextof situationisimplicatedinthefirstinstance- thatis,seman-tics.Inotherwords,registerialvariationissemanticvariationinthe firstinstance.Incontrast,Halliday(1978)suggests,dialectalvariation primarilyaffectsthelowerstrataoflexicogrammarandphonology . However,Hasan's (e.g.,1990)researchhasshownthat semantic varia- * tionmaybecodal(cf.Halliday1991a):thedifferencefromregister variationisthatthereisahigher-levelconstantoutsidelanguage. Letusbeginwiththecontextualroleof registervariationandthenturn tothevariationitselfwithinthelinguisticsystem. 3.1Contextualroli of registervariation Wecaninterpretregistervariationasthelinguisticsystem'sresponseto pressuresfromabove,fromthediversityofcontextsofcommunication: language has toaccommodatethisdiversityand it doessoby varying itself. 234CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN whyweshouldtakeitasourpointof departureindevelopinganaccount ofregistertypes.6 In whatfollows,itwillonlybepossibletofollowthroughone alternative systematicallyandIwillusealternative(i)sinceitraisesvariousissues about variationasan independenttheoreticaldimensionthatareimportant inthecontextof thisbook.Anumberof findingsfromonealternativecan bere-interpretedintermsof theotherandIwilldosowhereappropriate. The genremodel has been tremendouslyinfluentialand been usedin many studies,inparticularineducationallinguisticsandsocialsemiotics.The mostrecentsummaryof themodelcanbefoundinMartin(inpress).It isreviewedcriticallyinHasan(inpress)fromthepointofviewofher theoreticalpositionandthediscussionwillbecontinuedfromthegenre model'spointof view.Sincethetopicof thisbookisvariationinlanguage andanumberof contributionsdemonstratethevalueofthisvariation,it willbeveryclearthatvariationinmetalanguageisequallyvaluable(cf. furtherSection8).Infactitiscrucial,sincetheexistenceofdifferent varietiesof systemic-functionaltheoryclarifiestheoveralltheoreticalspace. 3.Registervariation Letusexplore,then,theinterpretationofregisterasastateofthe linguisticsystemalongthedimensionof functionalvariation,or,asit has alsobeencalled,diatypicvariation.Thevariationistheprimary theoreticalabstraction- therecognitionthatthesystemisfunctionally variable- andthenotionof'register'isaconvenientsecondaryidealiza-tion- justasadialectandasynchronicsystemare.Infact,registeris explicitlygroupedwithotherkindsof variationonthesystemictheme(cf. Gregory1967;GregoryandCarol1978;Hasan1973;Halliday1978)-dialectal(includingsociolectel)andhistorical.(Wewillreturntohistoryin Section5:thereareatleastthreetypesof historytotakeintoaccount.) Thisisimportantasitinvitesustoexplorecommonwaysof modelling varietiesandtogeneralizeinsightsgainedwithonetypeofvariation(cf. Section3.2.2(ii)below).Registervariationiscomparedwithcodalvaria-tionanddialectalvariationinFigure11.5,whichisbasedonHalliday's characterizationof thesetypesof variationaccordingtotheexistenceand locationofahigher-levelconstantinrelationtowhichthereisvariation. Whatisspecificaboutregistervariation?TheanswergivenbyHalliday (e.g.,1978) has twointerconnected parts,relating to(i)contextualroleand (ii)domainofvariationwithinthelinguisticsystem: (i)Upwards:incontrasttoothertypesof variation,registervariationhas no higher-levelconstant.Itshigher-stratalsignificancepertainsprecisely todiversificationincontextofsituation- toselectionswithinfield, tenorandmode.Thatis,thefunctionof registervariationiscontex- tual,inthesenseof contextof situation.(Incontrast,dialectalvariation hasahigher-levelconstantwithinlanguageandisarealizationof the socialstructureofaculture). REGISTERINTHEROUND (ii!higher-level C01'lstallt 235 context (i)nohigher-level 'constant language Figure11.5Differenttypesof variationaccordingtopresenceand locationof constant (ii)Withinthelinguisticsystem:sincethefunctionof registervariation iscontextual,thatlinguisticstratumwhichistheinterfacetothe contextof situationisimplicatedinthefirstinstance- thatis,seman-tics.Inotherwords,registerialvariationissemanticvariationinthe firstinstance.Incontrast,Halliday(1978)suggests,dialectalvariation primarilyaffectsthelowerstrataoflexicogrammarandphonology . However,Hasan's (e.g.,1990)researchhasshownthat semantic varia- * tionmaybecodal(cf.Halliday1991a):thedifferencefromregister variationisthatthereisahigher-levelconstantoutsidelanguage. Letusbeginwiththecontextualroleof registervariationandthenturn tothevariationitselfwithinthelinguisticsystem. 3.1Contextualroli of registervariation Wecaninterpretregistervariationasthelinguisticsystem'sresponseto pressuresfromabove,fromthediversityofcontextsofcommunication: language has toaccommodatethisdiversityand it doessoby varying itself. 236CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN Thatis,thediversityofcontextualdemandsengendersregistervariation. Butasalwayswithcharacterizationsofinter-stratalrelations,wehaveto rememberthattherelationisdialectal:registervariationalsoconstrues contextualdiversity. 3.1.1Contextoj situation Contextualdemandscanbecharacterizedintermsof recurrentcontextsof, situation- thatis,situationtypesthathavebecomepartofaculture.-\.( Selectionsfromcontextofsituationarerealizedbyregistervariationand inthisrespecttherealizationalrelationdiffersfromthatbetween lexicogrammarandsemantics.Thesemanticsystemisrealizedbythe lexicogrammaticalonebutcontextofsituationis realizednotdirectlyby thelinguisticsystembutbyvariationinthelinguisticsystem.Soacontex-tualchoiceisameta-choicerelativetothelinguisticsystemnotonlyinthe generalsenseofastratalmoveup(wheresemanticsmightbeviewedas meta-grammar)butalsointhesensethatitisachoicebetweenvarieties ofthelinguisticsystem . .Situationtypesareintersectionsof differentfield,tenorandmodevalues - whatHasan(1985)callscontextualconfigurations(CCs),Eachcontext of situationcorrespondstoalocationalongthedimensionof registervaria-tion- thatis,toaregister. 7 Soagivencombinationoffield,tenorand mode(aCC)correspondstoaparticularregister:seeFigure11.6.The valuesareselectionsfromfield,tenorandmodenetworks.Thismeansthat wecanstatethevaluesatvariabledegreesof delicacysowecangivewhole 'families'ofregisters,subfamiliesorsingleregisterscontextualvalues dependingonthedegreeof delicacyweselectwithincontext.Forinstance, wecangrouprecipes,carrepairinstructions,andfurnitureassembly instructionsintoafamilyof proceduralregisters.Contextually,thesemay allbesimilarintenorandmodebuttheywillcertainlyvaryinfield.Or, totakeanotherexample,incharacterizingscientificEnglishasa generalizedregister,Halliday(1988:162)usesverygeneral,indelicate field,tenor andmodevalues:'in field,extending,transmitting or exploring knowledgeinthephysical,biologicalorsocialsciences;intenor,addressed tospecialists,learnersorlaymen,fromwithinthesamegroup(e.g. specialisttospecialist)oracrossgroups(e.g.lecturertostudents);andIII mode,phonicorgraphicchannel,mostincongruent(e.g.formal"written language"withgraphicchannel)orlessso(e.g.formalwithphonicchan-nel),andwithvariationinrhetoricalfunction- expository,hortatory, polemic,imaginativeandsoon.' Thecontextualcharacterizationofaregisterisveryimportantsinceit specifiestheregister'shigher-levelsignificance- itisimportantnot just to takeoverexistingcategoriesglossedinsimpletermssuchasthelanguage ofaparticularactivityordisciplineorformofpublication.These categoriestendtobetoocrudeandheterogeneous.Thereareexamplesof carefuldescriptionsine.g.HallidayandHasan(1985)andHalliday(1978) but thisisonearea whereweneedagooddealmoredescriptiveexperience toestablishdescriptivecategoriesthatcanbere-usedandexpanded-REGISTERINTHEROUND 237 ",.,register 3 PpPregister 2 register 1 Figure11.6Contextsof situationcharacterizedby ecs andcorresponding registers tothedescriptivecategorieswenowhaveforthegrammar(as IIIHalhday1985a).Ghadessy(thisvolume)offersadetailedcommentary onthefield,tenorandmodeofcontextsofsituationinwhichbusiness communicationoccurs.SeealsoSection7.1. Contextofsituationischaracterizedbythefractaldimensionsof organization(seeSection2.2above)justlikeanyotherstratalsystem.It isbothparadigmaticallyandsyntagmaticallyorganized- ithassystemas wellasstructure.Ithasgenerallybeenassumedthatdifferentsituation typesarecharacterizedbydifferentstructuralconfigurations,different gene.ricstructures.Suchstructuresunfoldovertimesotheyarestaged; mOVIllgfromonestagetoanothermeansmovingfromonelogo genetic statetoanotherintheinstantiationofacontextofsituation(cf.Section 5.1belowandseefurtherQ'Donnell,MatthiessenandSefton1991- for ageneraldiscussionofthedynamicsofcontext,seeHasan1981).The differentstagesmayberealizedbylanguagealone,byabalancedmixture oflanguageandnon-symbolicbehaviour,ormainlybynon-symbolic behaviour.Andsemioticsystemsotherthanlanguagemayalsobe involved.Thedivisionoflabourdependsonselectionswithincontextof 236CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN Thatis,thediversityofcontextualdemandsengendersregistervariation. Butasalwayswithcharacterizationsofinter-stratalrelations,wehaveto rememberthattherelationisdialectal:registervariationalsoconstrues contextualdiversity. 3.1.1Contextoj situation Contextualdemandscanbecharacterizedintermsof recurrentcontextsof, situation- thatis,situationtypesthathavebecomepartofaculture.-\.( Selectionsfromcontextofsituationarerealizedbyregistervariationand inthisrespecttherealizationalrelationdiffersfromthatbetween lexicogrammarandsemantics.Thesemanticsystemisrealizedbythe lexicogrammaticalonebutcontextofsituationis realizednotdirectlyby thelinguisticsystembutbyvariationinthelinguisticsystem.Soacontex-tualchoiceisameta-choicerelativetothelinguisticsystemnotonlyinthe generalsenseofastratalmoveup(wheresemanticsmightbeviewedas meta-grammar)butalsointhesensethatitisachoicebetweenvarieties ofthelinguisticsystem . .Situationtypesareintersectionsof differentfield,tenorandmodevalues - whatHasan(1985)callscontextualconfigurations(CCs),Eachcontext of situationcorrespondstoalocationalongthedimensionof registervaria-tion- thatis,toaregister. 7 Soagivencombinationoffield,tenorand mode(aCC)correspondstoaparticularregister:seeFigure11.6.The valuesareselectionsfromfield,tenorandmodenetworks.Thismeansthat wecanstatethevaluesatvariabledegreesof delicacysowecangivewhole 'families'ofregisters,subfamiliesorsingleregisterscontextualvalues dependingonthedegreeof delicacyweselectwithincontext.Forinstance, wecangrouprecipes,carrepairinstructions,andfurnitureassembly instructionsintoafamilyof proceduralregisters.Contextually,thesemay allbesimilarintenorandmodebuttheywillcertainlyvaryinfield.Or, totakeanotherexample,incharacterizingscientificEnglishasa generalizedregister,Halliday(1988:162)usesverygeneral,indelicate field,tenor andmodevalues:'in field,extending,transmitting or exploring knowledgeinthephysical,biologicalorsocialsciences;intenor,addressed tospecialists,learnersorlaymen,fromwithinthesamegroup(e.g. specialisttospecialist)oracrossgroups(e.g.lecturertostudents);andIII mode,phonicorgraphicchannel,mostincongruent(e.g.formal"written language"withgraphicchannel)orlessso(e.g.formalwithphonicchan-nel),andwithvariationinrhetoricalfunction- expository,hortatory, polemic,imaginativeandsoon.' Thecontextualcharacterizationofaregisterisveryimportantsinceit specifiestheregister'shigher-levelsignificance- itisimportantnot just to takeoverexistingcategoriesglossedinsimpletermssuchasthelanguage ofaparticularactivityordisciplineorformofpublication.These categoriestendtobetoocrudeandheterogeneous.Thereareexamplesof carefuldescriptionsine.g.HallidayandHasan(1985)andHalliday(1978) but thisisonearea whereweneedagooddealmoredescriptiveexperience toestablishdescriptivecategoriesthatcanbere-usedandexpanded-REGISTERINTHEROUND 237 ",.,register 3 PpPregister 2 register 1 Figure11.6Contextsof situationcharacterizedby ecs andcorresponding registers tothedescriptivecategorieswenowhaveforthegrammar(as IIIHalhday1985a).Ghadessy(thisvolume)offersadetailedcommentary onthefield,tenorandmodeofcontextsofsituationinwhichbusiness communicationoccurs.SeealsoSection7.1. Contextofsituationischaracterizedbythefractaldimensionsof organization(seeSection2.2above)justlikeanyotherstratalsystem.It isbothparadigmaticallyandsyntagmaticallyorganized- ithassystemas wellasstructure.Ithasgenerallybeenassumedthatdifferentsituation typesarecharacterizedbydifferentstructuralconfigurations,different gene.ricstructures.Suchstructuresunfoldovertimesotheyarestaged; mOVIllgfromonestagetoanothermeansmovingfromonelogo genetic statetoanotherintheinstantiationofacontextofsituation(cf.Section 5.1belowandseefurtherQ'Donnell,MatthiessenandSefton1991- for ageneraldiscussionofthedynamicsofcontext,seeHasan1981).The differentstagesmayberealizedbylanguagealone,byabalancedmixture oflanguageandnon-symbolicbehaviour,ormainlybynon-symbolic behaviour.Andsemioticsystemsotherthanlanguagemayalsobe involved.Thedivisionoflabourdependsonselectionswithincontextof 238 CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN situation.Thelimitingcaseofcontextofsituationbeingrealizedby registervariationisthusvariationintypeofsocialsystem- eitherfrom languagetoanothersemioticsystemorfromasemioticonetoanon-semioticone(i.e.,onethatisprimarilynon-symbolicratherthansymbolic evenifithassecondaryinterpretations). 8Historically,itisevenpossible togetasenseofhowdesignedsemioticsystemshavetakenoverfrom specialistregisters- cf.Section5.3below. Situationtypesarethusstructuredbutitalsoseemshighlylikelythat theymayberanked.SinclairandCoulthard's(1975)workonlessonsin classroominteractionwouldbeanexampleofthisandSteiner's(1988) workonactivityingeneraldemonstratestheexistenceofranking.Any rankingof situationtypeswouldbereflectedinthesemanticsystemof the relevantregister:seefurtherSections3.2.2and4.2. 3.1.2Beyondcontextoj situation Contextof situationisthemostimmediateaspectof thegeneralcontextin whichthelinguisticsystemisembeddedanditisthesysteminwhicha registerisgivenitscontextualsignificanceinthefirstinstance.Butcontext ofsituationisonlyoneaspectoftheoverallsocialcontextinwhich languageis'embedded':toputthisinMalinowski'sterms,wealsohave totakeaccountofthecontextofculture.Thecriticalquestionishowto modeltherelationshipbetweencontextofcultureandcontextofsitua-tion. 9Wecanlookatthisfromthepointofviewofthedimensionsof systemic-functionaltheory;thereareatleastthreepossibledimensions: (i) (ii) (iii) contextof culturemightberelatedtocontextofsituationintermsof rank- arelationshipofscale,amacrotomicrorelationshipwhere acultureconsistsofsituationtypes. contextof culturemightberelatedtocontextof situationintermsof stratification- arelationshipofabstract,amet a-relationshipwhere acultureisrealizedbysituationtypes. contextof culturemightberelatedtocontextof situationintermsof longtermpotentiality- arelationshipof observer'stime-depthwhere acultureisageneralizationacrosssituationtypes. (i)Therelationshipisperhapsmostoftendiscussedinrank-liketerms. Fromasociologicalpointofviewcontextofsituationisthemicro-perspectiveofdailydialogicencounters,writtenexchanges;andsoon ratherthanthemacro-perspectiveof broadsocialorganizationintoclasses, castes,genders,agegroups,etc.andoneinterestingquestioniswhether andhowthecontextualsignificanceofregisterextendsfromthemicroto themacro.Itiscertainlyonethat hasfacedethnomethodologistsingeneral andconversationalanalysistsinparticularsincetheirconcernswiththe microhaveleftagaptothemacroconcernsof moremainstreamsociology. Ifconversationalanalystscouldbridgethegap,theirworkwouldbe legitimizedfromamainstreampointofviewbuttheyhavetendedtobe verycautioushere.Schegloff andothers(e.g.ataCAworkshopatUCSB REGISTERINTHEROUND239 inthemid1980s)havearguedthatthemacro-categoriescannotnecessarily betakenforgrantedandthatitisprematuretotrytolinkupthemicro-analysiswithapriorimacrocategoriesinsteadofshowinghowmacro categoriesarebroughtintoexistenceinthemicroofdailylife.This problemishighlyrelevanttoregisteranalysissinceitrelatesdirectlytothe questionofcontextualsignificancebeyondthecontextofsituation. 10 Withinsystemictheory,therelationshipbetweencontextofsituationand contextsof culturehasbeenexploredinratherdifferentterms(elaborating ratherthanextendingaccordingtothedifferenttypesofexpansioniden-tifiedbyHalliday,1985a):thetwotheoreticalpositionsare(ii)and(iii) identifiedabove. (ii)Contextmaybemodelledasstratified intotwoor moreplanes.This isthemodeldevelopedandusedby JimMartinandothers,alreadyrefer-redtounder(ii)inSection2.3above." Thecontextualplanesareideology, genre,and'register'(inthesenseof contextof situation;seeMartin1986 forpioneeringtheconstrualofideologyinsystemictheory):ideologyis realizedbygenre,whichisinturnrealizedby'register',whichisinturn realizedbylanguage.Thismodelthusprovidesuswithawayofinter-pretingtheideologicalsignificanceof aparticularregister(inthesenseof functionalvariety)orpointof registervariation.Ideologyisinterpretedas aconnotativesemioticwhoserealizationisgenre;itcaptures,amongother things,thedistributionofgenresaccordingtothedivisionof labourina culture. OnegeneralpointHunston's(thisvolume)chapterraisesisthat particularregistershavehigher-levelideologicalsignificanceandtheir ideologicalroleconstrainshowmeaningsaremadee.g.bymarshallingthe metaphoricalmodetoachieveaninterpersonaldistancinginthedirection ofimplicitnessandobjectivity.Hunstonexploresevaluationinscientific writing.Evaluationisinherentlyintersubjectiveandessentiallyinterper-sonalbutsheshowshowthisangleisexpressedimplicitlyand'objectively' inhercorpusofresearcharticles- theevaluatortendsnottobepresent inthediscourse.Thisisachievedpartlythroughinterpersonalmetaphor. WhileHunstondoesnotcharacterizeherscientificregisterintermsof contextofsituation(field,tenorandmode),itseemsverylikelythatwe havetogobeyondcontextofsituationtoaccountforthewayevaluation worksintheregister.Wehavetotaketheideologyofthescientific community intoaccountand thisispreciselywhatshedoes.Sheshowsthat theideologyissuchthatevaluationhastobeimplicitandobjective:doing sciencemeansamongotherthingspersuadingfellowscientists(i.e.,mode: persuasive)butonecan'tbeseentobedoingthissotheregisterhasto accommodatethisdisjunction- ithastohaveresourcesof evaluationbut ithastoexpressthemexplicitlyanddistancedfromtheevaluator. (iii)Contextmaybeinterpretedintermsof potentiality,rangingfrom theculturalpotentialtoinstantialsituationswithsituationtypesof intermediateconstructs.ThisisHalliday'sapproachinHalliday(1978) and,moreexplicitly,inHalliday(1991b).Thecontextualsignificance beyondcontextofsituationwouldthusbeinterpretedintermsofmore 238CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN situation.Thelimitingcaseofcontextofsituationbeingrealizedby registervariationisthusvariationintypeofsocialsystem- eitherfrom languagetoanothersemioticsystemorfromasemioticonetoanon-semioticone(i.e.,onethatisprimarilynon-symbolicratherthansymbolic evenifithassecondaryinterpretations). 8Historically,itisevenpossible togetasenseofhowdesignedsemioticsystemshavetakenoverfrom specialistregisters- cf.Section5.3below. Situationtypesarethusstructuredbutitalsoseemshighlylikelythat theymayberanked.SinclairandCoulthard's(1975)workonlessonsin classroominteractionwouldbeanexampleofthisandSteiner's(1988) workonactivityingeneraldemonstratestheexistenceofranking.Any rankingof situationtypeswouldbereflectedinthesemanticsystemof the relevantregister:seefurtherSections3.2.2and4.2. 3.1.2Beyondcontextoj situation Contextof situationisthemostimmediateaspectof thegeneralcontextin whichthelinguisticsystemisembeddedanditisthesysteminwhicha registerisgivenitscontextualsignificanceinthefirstinstance.Butcontext ofsituationisonlyoneaspectoftheoverallsocialcontextinwhich languageis'embedded':toputthisinMalinowski'sterms,wealsohave totakeaccountofthecontextofculture.Thecriticalquestionishowto modeltherelationshipbetweencontextofcultureandcontextofsitua-tion. 9Wecanlookatthisfromthepointofviewofthedimensionsof systemic-functionaltheory;thereareatleastthreepossibledimensions: (i) (ii) (iii) contextof culturemightberelatedtocontextofsituationintermsof rank- arelationshipofscale,amacrotomicrorelationshipwhere acultureconsistsofsituationtypes. contextof culturemightberelatedtocontextof situationintermsof stratification- arelationshipofabstract,amet a-relationshipwhere acultureisrealizedbysituationtypes. contextof culturemightberelatedtocontextof situationintermsof longtermpotentiality- arelationshipof observer'stime-depthwhere acultureisageneralizationacrosssituationtypes. (i)Therelationshipisperhapsmostoftendiscussedinrank-liketerms. Fromasociologicalpointofviewcontextofsituationisthemicro-perspectiveofdailydialogicencounters,writtenexchanges;andsoon ratherthanthemacro-perspectiveof broadsocialorganizationintoclasses, castes,genders,agegroups,etc.andoneinterestingquestioniswhether andhowthecontextualsignificanceofregisterextendsfromthemicroto themacro.Itiscertainlyonethat hasfacedethnomethodologistsingeneral andconversationalanalysistsinparticularsincetheirconcernswiththe microhaveleftagaptothemacroconcernsof moremainstreamsociology. Ifconversationalanalystscouldbridgethegap,theirworkwouldbe legitimizedfromamainstreampointofviewbuttheyhavetendedtobe verycautioushere.Schegloff andothers(e.g.ataCAworkshopatUCSB REGISTERINTHEROUND239 inthemid1980s)havearguedthatthemacro-categoriescannotnecessarily betakenforgrantedandthatitisprematuretotrytolinkupthemicro-analysiswithapriorimacrocategoriesinsteadofshowinghowmacro categoriesarebroughtintoexistenceinthemicroofdailylife.This problemishighlyrelevanttoregisteranalysissinceitrelatesdirectlytothe questionofcontextualsignificancebeyondthecontextofsituation. 10 Withinsystemictheory,therelationshipbetweencontextofsituationand contextsof culturehasbeenexploredinratherdifferentterms(elaborating ratherthanextendingaccordingtothedifferenttypesofexpansioniden-tifiedbyHalliday,1985a):thetwotheoreticalpositionsare(ii)and(iii) identifiedabove. (ii)Contextmaybemodelledasstratified intotwoor moreplanes.This isthemodeldevelopedandusedby JimMartinandothers,alreadyrefer-redtounder(ii)inSection2.3above." Thecontextualplanesareideology, genre,and'register'(inthesenseof contextof situation;seeMartin1986 forpioneeringtheconstrualofideologyinsystemictheory):ideologyis realizedbygenre,whichisinturnrealizedby'register',whichisinturn realizedbylanguage.Thismodelthusprovidesuswithawayofinter-pretingtheideologicalsignificanceof aparticularregister(inthesenseof functionalvariety)orpointof registervariation.Ideologyisinterpretedas aconnotativesemioticwhoserealizationisgenre;itcaptures,amongother things,thedistributionofgenresaccordingtothedivisionof labourina culture. OnegeneralpointHunston's(thisvolume)chapterraisesisthat particularregistershavehigher-levelideologicalsignificanceandtheir ideologicalroleconstrainshowmeaningsaremadee.g.bymarshallingthe metaphoricalmodetoachieveaninterpersonaldistancinginthedirection ofimplicitnessandobjectivity.Hunstonexploresevaluationinscientific writing.Evaluationisinherentlyintersubjectiveandessentiallyinterper-sonalbutsheshowshowthisangleisexpressedimplicitlyand'objectively' inhercorpusofresearcharticles- theevaluatortendsnottobepresent inthediscourse.Thisisachievedpartlythroughinterpersonalmetaphor. WhileHunstondoesnotcharacterizeherscientificregisterintermsof contextofsituation(field,tenorandmode),itseemsverylikelythatwe havetogobeyondcontextofsituationtoaccountforthewayevaluation worksintheregister.Wehavetotaketheideologyofthescientific community intoaccountand thisispreciselywhatshedoes.Sheshowsthat theideologyissuchthatevaluationhastobeimplicitandobjective:doing sciencemeansamongotherthingspersuadingfellowscientists(i.e.,mode: persuasive)butonecan'tbeseentobedoingthissotheregisterhasto accommodatethisdisjunction- ithastohaveresourcesof evaluationbut ithastoexpressthemexplicitlyanddistancedfromtheevaluator. (iii)Contextmaybeinterpretedintermsof potentiality,rangingfrom theculturalpotentialtoinstantialsituationswithsituationtypesof intermediateconstructs.ThisisHalliday'sapproachinHalliday(1978) and,moreexplicitly,inHalliday(1991b).Thecontextualsignificance beyondcontextofsituationwouldthusbeinterpretedintermsofmore 240CHRISTIANMATTHIESSEN longtermculturalpatterns.IwillreturntothisapproachinSection6. It is,of course,entirelypossiblethatotherkindsof dimensionsarerele-vantin theinterpretation of therelationshipbetweencontextof cultureand contextof situation.Butitseemsimportanttoexploretheonesthathave alreadybeenidentified.Iwillnottrytoreconcilethethreealternatives now- oneobviousquestioniswhethertheyaretruealternativesor complementaritiesthataccountfordifferentaspectsoftherelationship betweencontextofcultureandcontextofsituation.Itisworthnoting, however,. thatobserver-perspectivebecomescritical:arewelookingat mcontextasoutsiders,adopting theanalyst'spoint of view(what wemIghtcallmeta-subjectivity)or asinteractants,adopting theperspective ofthosecollaboratinginsemioticprocesses(whatwemightcallinter-subjectivity?). 3.1.3Register,personandpersonalities SofarI'vediscussedthecontextualsignificanceofregisterfromthe perspectiveofthesystem- situationalsystems,culturalsystems,etc. However,thereisacomplementaryperspective:wecanlookatthese phenomenafromthepointof viewof usersof thesystem- inthesense of personsandgroupsof persons.Thesystemiswhatapersoncandoand anyinstanceofselectionfromthesystemiswhatapersondoes.Conse-quently,wecanconstrueapersonintermsof his/hersystemicpotential and actso.fselectionfromthatpotential.Andthisthenalsobecomesaway of construmg personsassocialrolesintermsof variation within overall systemandof relating persons togroups,again intermsof variation.From this.pointof view,thesignificanceof aregisterrelatestogroupsandthe thatmakethemup.Ontheonehand,itmaybedeployedin an mstItutIOnalgroupsuchasthosedoingscienceor busmesscharacterized aparticularideology.Ontheotherhand,itwillbepartof thereper-tOIrethatshapesapersonrelativetovarioussocialgroups.Let'sconsider institutionalgroupsfirst. StudiessuchasHunston'sinvestigationoftheresearcharticleor Ghadessy's(thisvolume)studyof business'communicationfocusonhow groupsasascientificcommunityoragroupentering mtobusmesstransactIOnsdeploytheresourcesofaregisterorsetof registers.Indeployingtheseresources,peopletakeonsocialroles ,"al'"h' personaeorpersonIt1essucaspeerresearcher,apprenticeresearcher, customer .. Atimeagonow,Firth(1950)establishedthecentralityof languagecreatmg personsandtheclustersof personalities(socialroles) thatconstItutethem:'Themeaningofpersoninthesenseofamanor woman infictitiousdialogue,orasacharacterinaplay,is relevantIf wetakeasociologicalviewof the personaeorpartswearecalled upontoplayintheroutineoflife.Everysocialpersonisabundleof personae,abundleof parts,each having itslines .... The continuityof the person,thedevelopmentofpersonality,areparalleledbythecontinuity anddevelopmentof languageinavarietyof forms'.Healsoemphasized theontogeneticperspectivehere.Halliday(e.g.,1975;1978)hastakenthis REGISTERINTHEROUND241 further,showingforexamplehowtheself isdeterminedandnegotiatedin countlessinteractionsstartingwithproto-Ianguageandhowpersonsare constructedrelativetothegroupthroughlanguage.Trevarthen(e.g., 1987)hasemphasizedtheimportanceofthedevelopmentofintersubjec-tivityintheseearlyinteractions.Further,Hasan (1986)hasshown howthe youngchildmaylearnaboutanideologicalpositioninlearningabout personalitiesininteractionwithhis/hermother.Birch(thisvolume)argues forapositionsimilartoFirth'sbutdrawsonsourcesotherthenFirth HallidayandHasan:'Acontemporarycriticalpositionarguesthatwear; interpellatedassubjects,ratherthanarguing thatwearebornwithaunique andspecificsocialandculturalidentity . -Weareconstructednot justasa subject,but,inmanydifferentsituationsandcontexts,asmany dIfferent,multiple,subjects.This simplesubjectivityismadepossibleonly bydiscursivemeans- amongstthem,language.'Firth,Halliday,Hasan, Birchandothersshowhowpersons/subjectsasconstellationsof personalitiesorsocialrolesarecreatedthroughlanguageindialogic interaction- howtheyarelearnedandnegotiatedaspersonaeasFirthput it.Wecanseethisinthehistoryofachildandwecanseethisinthe history; of atext:BirchshowswithexamplesthatPinter'splaysaregood sourcesforstudyingtheuseof linguisticresourcestonegotiatepersonae. Itispossibletoshowhowdifferentrolesareenactedthroughtheuseof interpersonalresourcesindialogue:thedifferentrolesareenactedas differentlocationswithintheoverallinterpersonalpotential. Giventhatlanguageplaysanimportantrolehere,whataboutvariation withinfanguage,morespecificallyregisterialvariation?Dialectalvariation isadirectindicationof aperson'slocationinthesocialsystem(orperhaps moreappropriately,apersonality'slocation,sinceapersonmaytakeon differentpersonalitiesinthisrespect- itisvariationaccordingtouser-butregisterialvariationaccordingtocontextof situation- variationaccor-dingtouse.However,partof thesocialsystemisthedistributionof the contextsinwhichpersonsmoveandtheregistersassociatedwiththese contextsthattheyhaveaccessto,soregistersreflect