Discourse and register analysis approaches LESSON 6

Text analysis vs Discourse analysis Drawing on developments in applied linguistics, in the 1990s discourse analysis came into prominence in TS TEXT ANALYSIS  focuses on describing how texts are organised DISCOURSE ANALYSIS  looks ate the way language communicates meaning and social and power relations The most influential model of discourse analysis is Michael Halliday’s SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL MODEL (Munday, 2001: 128-129)

Halliday’s Systemic-Functional Linguistics (1/6) MICHAEL HALLIDAY The Systemic Functional Linguistics was developed in the ‘60s and influenced by the Prague School and the British linguist J. R. Firth study language as communication SFL sees meaning in the writer’s linguistic choices and relates them to a wider sociocultural framework “While individual scholars naturally have different research emphases or application contexts, common to all systemic linguistic is an interest in language as social semiotic” (Halliday 1978)

Halliday’s Systemic-Functional Linguistics (2/6) The concept of “system” was borrowed from Firth, who thought that linguistic systems furnish the “background for elements of structure” (Firth, 1968) Halliday introduced the concept of “systemic features”, that he described as a “set of features contrastive in a given environment” (Halliday, 1961) Two new elements: 1. The “environment”, or CONTEXT 2. The “set of features”, that prefigures a CHOICE

Halliday’s Systemic-Functional Linguistics (3/6) …but why is the SFL “functional”? Language has developed in response to […] “social-functional needs” (Halliday, 1975) SFL advances 4 main theoretical claims about language: 1. language use is functional 2. its function is to make meanings 3. these meanings are influenced by the social and cultural context in which they are exchanged 4. the process of using language is a semiotic process, that is, a process of making meaning by choosing (Suzanne Eggins, 2005)

Halliday’s Systemic-Functional Linguistics (4/6) The “social-functional needs”, or METAFUNCTIONS, served by language are essentially: 1. construe experience in terms of what is going on around us and inside us IDEATIONAL METAFUNCTION 2. interact with the social world by negotiating roles and attitudes INTERPERSONAL METAFUNCTION 3. create messages with which we can package our meanings TEXTUAL METAFUNCTION (Muntigl – Ventola, 2010)

Halliday’s Systemic-Functional Linguistics (5/6) Why is this third metafunction called “textual”? “The unit of analysis for SF linguists is the text because the functional meaning potential of language is realized in units no smaller than texts. Of course, the study of texts is typically performed by examining elements of the lexico-grammar and phonology, but these smaller units must be viewed from the perspective of their contribution to the meanings expressed by the total text in context” (Chapelle, 1998) “For a linguist, to describe language without accounting for text is sterile; and to describe text without relating it to language is vacuous” (Halliday, 1985)

Halliday’s model of language (1/4) Halliday’s model of language is based on his SFL Study of language as COMMUNICATION Meaning derives from the writer’s linguistic choices, which he systematically relates to a wider sociocultural framework Bühler’s language functions  informative, expressive and appellative

Halliday’s model of language (2/4) According to Halliday, there is a strong correlation between linguistic choices, the aims of the form of communication and the sociocultural framework. The direction of influence is top-down, thus the sociocultural environment in which the text operates influences the genre, which SFL considers the conventional text type associated with a given communicative function… …and then genre influences the REGISTER, and so on… (Munday, 2001: 137-139)

Halliday’s model of language (3/4) In Systemic Functional Linguistics, REGISTER includes: FIELD  what is being written about TENOR  who is communicating, and to whom MODE  the form of communication Each of these is associated with a METAFUNCTION, or “strand of meaning”: FIELD – ideational TENOR – interpersonal MODE – textual In turn, these metafunctions are formed by the choices of lexis, grammar and syntax (LEXICO-GRAMMAR) made by the text producer (Munday, 2001: 137-139)

Halliday’s model of language (4/4) The analysis of lexico-grammatical patterns of transitivity, modality, thematic structure and cohesion can help reveal how the strands of meaning are constructed (Munday, 2001: 139)

J. House: overt vs covert translation (1/2) Juliane House Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited (1997) House criticized that skopos theory and other target-oriented approaches because they went too far neglecting the ST She proposed a model for translation quality assessment based on comparative ST-TT analysis: A profile is produced of the ST Register To this is added a description of the ST genre realized by the Register Together, they allow a statement of function to be made for the ST The same descriptive process is carried out for the TT The TT profile is compared with the ST profile and a statement of “mismatches” is produced A statement of quality is made of the translation Finally, the translation can be categorized into one of two types: OVERT or COVERT

J. House: overt vs covert translation (2/2) “…is one in which the addressees of the translation text are quite overtly not being directly addressed” (House, 1997: 66)  The TT does not pretend to be an original and is clearly not directed at the TT audience  Equivalence sought at the level of language, Register and genre (but not text function, because the discourse worlds in which ST and TT operate are different). COVERT TRANSLATION “…is a translation which enjoys the status of an original source text in the target culture (House, 1997: 69)  The TT recreates, reproduces or represents the function that the original had in its sociocultural framework  Equivalence sought at the level of genre and individual text functions using a “cultural filter” (modifying cultural elements and giving the impression that the TT is an original) (Munday, 2001: 142)

References MUNDAY, J. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. HALLIDAY, M.A.K. 1978. "An interpretation of the functional relationship between language and social structure", from U. Quastoff (ed.), Sprachstruktur – Sozialstruktur: Zure Linguistichen Theorienbildung, 3–42, reprinted in Jonathan Webster (ed). Vol. 10 of Halliday's Collected Works. 2007. London and New York: Continuum. HALLIDAY, M. A. K. 1985. Systemic background, in Benson, D. J. W. S. Greaves, Eds. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Volume 1. Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop. Norwood (NJ): Ablex Publishing Corporation. HOUSE, J. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION! PROF.SSA LAURA LIUCCI laura.liucci@uniroma2.it