Linguistica Inglese 3, Appunti di Linguistica Inglese

Scarica Linguistica Inglese 3 e più Appunti in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity! ENGLISH LINGUISTIC The course will be about→ Language as Purposeful: Functional Varieties of Text. In the subtitle we have two key words: one is functional, reminding us that we are going to pay more attention to the functions like in language performs; and the second one is text, which is the main object of study in the third year. Course content: lectures aim to refine, and also adding to, basic systemic functional linguistics (SFL) notions wrt = with regard/reference to register, for example, the subject of our course. Then the grammar (eg. lexicogrammar) of the English language & the process of a text’s creation - which you were taught during the first two years of the course. All of this will be accomplished by applying these notions to the analysis of various functional varieties of text, or text types, or registers; always stressing their strict connection to their contexts; and making further considerations wrt the theories (by different scholars) we’ll be illustrating. The main topic of the course is language as purpose-ful, in short, the notion of register. But ‘register’ does NOT just involve the formal vs informal language distinction, it's a much more complex notion and it is not limited to just these two concepts. Register analysis basically means text analysis, that is analysing in texts the wordings, which tends to realise their meanings, which tend to be determined by contexts (wording, meaning and context = different levels of language). By wordings we mean the lexical-grammatical structure, so the word we choose and how we combine them, the order in which we put them. But with an important difference: when analysing a text-as-an-instance-of-register we’re dealing with a typical conglomeration of speaker choices in wording/meaning, which has been activated by a combination of contextual variables that are typical of a situation type. List of Acronyms CC = Contextual Configuration CL = Corpus Linguistics CMD = Computer Mediated Discourse FG = Functional Grammar GP = Grammatical Parallelism PP = Pervasive Parallelism RP = Received Pronunciation SE = Standard English SFL = Systemic Functional Linguistics SSS = Systemic Socio-Semantic Stylistics Linguistics = it is a metalanguage Reviewing, refining and topping-up some fundamental SFL notions SFL interprets the social system as a social semiotic: a system of meanings that constitutes the ‘reality of the culture'. Culture can be defined as a global social-semiotic system, which is made up of interrelated meanings (i. e. ways of saying the same thing). This global social-semiotic system is an integrated body of the total set of meanings available to any discourse community, its total semiotic potential (i. e. what members of the community are able to ‘mean’). But ‘meaning’ is not always linguistically performed. Language is only one of a number of ways of meaning, of the ways we have at our disposal to mean, which taken together go into making up a culture or social system. Although we study language as a form of behaviour, our full semiotic potential includes various ways of being and behaving. These include our ways of doing, but also our ways of thinking, as well as our ways of saying and meaning. And ‘doing’ is an enormous category, for instance forms of everyday dress, study, recreation, either personal or linked to the family and other institutional structures etc. are all forms of cultural behaviour as well. So, language is only one among a number of semiotic systems that together make up human culture. This social system, at the basis of each culture, is also variously known as a social belief and value system. So then, in order to study the social system and culture from a linguistic point of view, we study its ways of saying: the language of the texts it produces, in the firm conviction that a text is a fragment of the culture that produces it. The process of text construction is a ‘circulatory’ process in and by which the cultural worldview is constructed too. social belief, value systems, world views, ideologies or cultural paradigms are dynamically constructed/realised IN/BY TEXTS (which repropose, or challenge, them) So all linguistics is the study of meaning and all meaning is function in a context. That is to say that, when we study texts, we also need to examine the total environment in which the text unfolds, or its con-text. Context comes before text; it is seen as being prior to the discourse that relates to it. And the SFL (Systemic Functional Linguistics) view is that the best way to understand the functions of language in context is to study texts. What is a text The basic definition of "text", says Halliday, is "language that is functional" or " language that is doing some job in some context". So a text is therefore always seen as being strictly related: - Firstly, to its Context of Situation, which is defined as the immediate material and social environment in which a text is being instantiated. - Then, to the Context of Culture, which is the most ‘outer’ or ‘highest-order’ context surrounding both the text and its specific Context of Situation. These two extra-textual features are what make each text different from others. The context of culture and the context of Situation are extra-linguistic levels, while the text is a linguistic level. This image represents the culture(s) - text(s) connection. Tenor: - Social roles of Speaker and Addressee (social role refers to the role one has in society) = the speaker is unknown/a potential customer, while the addressee is someone working at the cinema (there is nothing in the text that explicit the social role of the addressee but we can understand something from the text and context) - Discourse roles of Speaker and Addressee = the discourse role of the speaker is asking for information, while the discourse role of the addressee is none (in the text as we have it!! We can hypothesis they will answer but we don’t know) - Attitude towards each others = the attitude of the speaker is formal but cordial (and we can imagine it will be the same for the addressee but we can’t know) Mode: - Text creation (shared/not) = this kind of text is characterised by a potentially shared creation (in the text as we have it bc the text does not include the employee’s answer but we presume there will be one) - Is it spontaneous, prepared, semi-prepared? = it’s semi-prepared - The channel = the channel is phonic (speaking through the phone, we are dealing with oral language) - Ancillary/constitutive role of language = there is a constitutive role of language - Text’s organisation = we only have a small extract of the text, so we cannot say much about this, though we can presume that this is the opening stage in a conversation over the phone. 2) Hey Jim, you guys went to that new movie at the Odeon last night, no? Any good? What time’s it on? Field: - Social activity = we don’t know, it could be a text message, a phone call, or a face to face conversation between friends (the ‘hey Jim’ make it seems like this last one) and there is a request for information - Subject matter/topic = it is the new movie (Did they go? Quality?) and the time it’s on at the cinema Tenor: - Social roles of Speaker and Addressee = we don’t know anything about Jim or the speaker, but since social roles refer to the role one has in society, we can say they are friends with each other - Discourse roles of Speaker and Addressee = the discourse roles of the speaker is asking for information while the one of the addressee is none in the text as we have it - Attitude towards each other = friendly and informal (‘Hey Jim’, ‘you guys’, ‘any good’, ‘no?’→ the speaker is calling the addressee by name and they are using short forms usually used in informal conversations, especially between friends) Mode: - Text creation (shared/not?) = potentially shared, the text does not include Jim’s answer but we presume he’ll answer - Is it spontaneous, prepared, semi-prepared? = it’s spontaneous if we consider it as a face-to-face conversation, while it would be semi-prepared if we considered it as a phone message - Channel = phonic - Ancillary/constitutive role of language = constitutive - Text’s organisation = again, we cannot say much about the text as we have it. We can presume that this is the opening stage in an informal conversation between friends Which contextual variable(s) in particular is/are different in these texts? There are similarities between field and mode, what makes a difference is the tenor. More specifically the Addressee, because both in the first and the second the discourse role of the speaker is making questions. The addressees change: - in text number one the ‘you’ is asymmetrical with the speaker and that means that there is a certain distance between speaker and addressee for various reasons. They are not face to face and there is an imbalance because the addressee has more knowledge and therefore more power in the conversation. - in the second text speaker and addressee are on the same level, there is no distance and there is intimity, informalancy, a peer to peer relationship so it’s a symmetrical relationship. Though these differences also impact on Mode. They oblige the choice for: - pre-scripted formula for polite requests for info (in text 1) - features of ‘face-to-face spontaneous talk’ (in text 2) Even though there are these differences, the Fields of the 2 texts are almost identical: first of all, the nature of the ongoing social activity is making an inquiry / asking for info (register: enquiry / consultation); and second of all, the subject matter is even the same, movie showings. In this sense the texts belong to the same register family. Register families The entire range of such partially different text-types constitute a single register family. In fact, the study of register is the study: - On one hand, of the regularities within these ‘families’, - On the other, of their divergences from features of other ‘families’. Register variation is a fact of linguistics because of the specifiable similarities and differences in the selection of features from the Field, Tenor, Mode of discourse to which the grammar being instantiated is at all times enormously sensitive. This is the reasoning that led Miller and Johnson to coin the expression register idiosyncrasy – in contrast to the less precise and more constraining term register specificity. In doing so, we were also connecting up to Halliday’s characterization of language as a stratified probabilistic system, meaning that a language works with tendencies rather than certainties. Register overlaps Different registers often overlap, it’s the norm. There will frequently be a certain degree of overlap between the ways of meaning and saying of different registers (this also explains why no register can be considered to be totally open). We are not talking about the kind of overlapping, blending etc. that occurs with registerial hybridity, where, within the same text-type, there is a recognizable mixing of different Fields of activity, which will mean a mixture of the meanings and wordings typically determined by such Fields. Here we are talking about the phenomenon of different registers exhibiting similarities of meanings / wordings. There are basically two reasons for this: 1. the system of the language, though enormous, is not infinite 2. the rhetorical purposes of different registers at times intersect, so to some extent their meanings and wordings will correspond as well. (= le finalità retoriche dei diversi registri a volte si intersecano, quindi anche i loro significati e le loro formulazioni corrisponderanno). An example could be the second text we saw earlier, because the enquiry / consultation is highly informal and consequently predictably, it constructs also a ‘sharing’ face-to-face conversation, however brief. Technically these are two different registers: on one hand we have the conversation with a friend and on the other hand the research of information. In short, it is the set of the various ways in which you can talk about a certain thing (example of ‘Hey Jim’ and the other guy who asks the times of the cinema). Register hybridity As Matthiessen explained, blend / overlap of registers tend to give rise to what has been called registerial hybridity. The phenomenon of hybridity of texts has been enhanced by technological developments such as the World Wide Web. Technological developments have also transformed the nature of ‘channel’ within Mode. According to the Oxford dictionary, hybridity is the quality of being heterogeneous in origin or composition, mixing two or more different features. According to Hasan, this kind of hybridity in texts can be said to be a question of the permeability of the boundaries between contexts. Such permeability can be effectively described with reference to the kind of prototypical register types and sub-types being identified in the registerial cartography project of Matthiessen. They aim to: - Identify / describe features of prototypical register types and sub-types - Bring to light the phenomenon of register hybridisation (features of different registers are mixed in a given text, which can be said to belong to more than one register at the same time) Closed vs. open registers As Halliday tells us, registers can be closed or open, and all registers should be seen as being located somewhere along a cline / continuum between the two extremes. The notion of closed / open with reference to registers is fundamentally a notion of the extent of their predictability. If a register is considered to be more open, then it follows that its wordings / meanings are less predictable, because its situation type leaves it more ‘open’ to introducing various ways of saying / meaning. More open = less predictable, the harder it is to predict the more ‘open’ a register is said to be. Conversely, if a register is more closed, its wordings / meanings are more predictable, because its situation type dictates that it will be more ‘closed’ to other ways of saying / meaning. More closed = more predictable, so the easier it is to predict the more ‘closed’ a register is said to be. N.B. Predictability (and so also open-ness and closed-ness) always depends also on the extent to which one (the ‘predictor’) is familiar with the text type itself! So, the notion of open / closed register is a continuum: Some registers will fall at the extremes of the cline; others will fall somewhere along it. BUT, remember: no register can be considered to be totally open opr totally closed !!! No register can be completely open because some predictability, if only very minor, will be involved in all text-types, also due to the notion of intertextuality*. Likewise, no registers are ever completely closed, also because speakers may choose to disregard conventional ways of saying / meaning and modify them. There is, in short, a possibility for contratextuality*. Highly closed registers = highly coded, highly predictable, with hardly any room for making alternative wordings/meanings. Some examples can be: - Air traffic control communication between the crew of an airplane and ground control. These are largely conventionally pre-scripted. Where not adhering to the conventions would be highly unlikely, because it is highly dangerous! - Specific terms that are used in games, such as terms of chess or poker. BUT even these registers will be less closed (less predictable) for someone who has never been on a plane or does not know how to play these games. TIME OUT concerning a feature of Mode, that is the role that language is playing in the text. Registers vary along the cline, from being - Action-oriented: when the Context of Situation is one in which there is much ‘action’ going on and little ‘talk’ (in texts such as largely silent games, we say that language as action dominates). In this case of language as action what is highlighted is interpersonal meaning-making (ex. ‘I see you’ in poker). In addition, the language of action-orientation is said to be fundamentally ancillary to that action, meaning it is basically an ‘extra’, non-essential to the ongoing social activity taking place (in this case, the language that does occur, if it does, is merely an adjunct to the material or mental activity going on). As Halliday puts it: “There is no situation in which the meanings are not to a certain extent prescribed for us. There is always some feature of which we can say ‘this is typically associated with this or that use of language’. Even the most informal spontaneous conversation has its strategies and styles of meaning. We are never selecting with complete freedom from all the resources of our linguistic system. If we were, there would be no communication. We understand each other only because we are able to make predictions, subconscious guesses, about what the other person is going to say”. EXAMPLES 1. A game of poker → ++ closed; less closed if the predictor is not a poker player 2. Instructions - assembling Ikea coffee table → + closed because less complex than (3) above 3. Recipe for apple pie → + closed, but if the predictor is not familiar with baking in general it will probably be a little more open 4. Formal letter of complaint about city bus schedules → + open; less open if the predictor is a regular bus user, familiar with the problems in bus schedules, or has written similar letters before 5. Instructions – PC operating system installation Manual → + open; more towards the closed end if the predictor is an ITC expert, engineer, developer, or has already installed similar software before 6. Horoscope in a newspaper vs. a book dedicated to 1 sign → + open, but the horoscope in a newspaper is obviously less open (shorter etc.) than a whole book on a specific sign 7. Football game report → + open; it becomes less open if the predictor is a football lover and/or s/he watched the match 8. A Declaration of Independence → + open, at least for someone who is familiar with the American Declaration of Independence, which provides a model 9. FaceBook postings → ++ open; less open if the predictor is always on Facebook and knows the author of the postings pretty well 10. Editorial/ Op-Ed article → ++ open, close to narrative, but if the predictor is familiar with the newspaper’s stance on a given issue/ topic, it could be less open 11. Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’ (before reading it) → ++ open (narrative, verbal art), a little less open if I know Tolstoy very well or I’m an expert in Russian literature EXERCISE / EXAMPLE - say if the following examples instantiate language as action or reflection, and a more ancillary or constitutive role of language wrt the interaction. 1. Formal letter of complaint about city bus schedules → more as reflection / constitutive 2. FaceBook postings → more as reflection / constitutive 3. Instructions – PC operating system installation Manual → more as action / ancillary 4. Instructions - assembling Ikea coffee table → more as action / ancillary (even more than point 3 because of drawings) 5. Recipe for apple pie → more as action / ancillary 6. Horoscope in a newspaper vs. a book dedicated to 1 sign → more as reflection / constitutive 7. A game of poker → more as action / ancillary 8. Football game report → more as reflection / constitutive 9. Editorial/ Op-Ed article → more as reflection / constitutive 10. A Declaration of Independence → more as reflection / constitutive 11.Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’ (before reading) → more as reflection / constitutive The notion of register and other theories and practices Register vs Dialect Register and dialect are two kinds of language variation. The register is language variation according to the use which language is being put: - It depends on what you are doing, the purposes that language is serving within some social activity - It’s above all a semantic concept: i.e. registers are different from each other in their meanings. In short, different registers are saying/meaning different things On the other hand the dialect is language variation according to the user: - It depends on who you are (geographical and social positioning - depending on the user social positioning the user themselves will use more or less dialect) - It’s above all a grammatical and phonological concept. In short: different dialects may say/mean the same things, but in different ways. Register according to the use vs dialect according to the users !!! NB Register and dialect are interconnected notions. Dialects are typically associated with the wordings/meanings of certain registers & certain registers can typically even demand that certain dialects be used. Some examples are: - Administrative registers (eg, application for passport renewal) > ‘standard’ English (SE) - Very informal registers such as face-to-face conversation between friends > less ‘standard’ English (ie, dialect, colloquial slang/jargon etc…) Register and dialect switching → some people can switch easily from one dialect and / or register to another, while others cannot do so. Not everyone has the same idea of which ways of saying/meaning are ‘appropriate’ to given Context of Situation. Antilanguage → Antilanguage is an extreme case of social dialectal differentiation, which construes sharp divisions within the social structure because it is generated by a closed discourse community, or an antisociety (a society that is set up within another society as a conscious alternative to it). Examples include unlawful political, religious, criminal, prison and drug underworlds. Register and Corpus A corpus (in a linguistic meaning - the plural is corpora) is usually a very large collection of texts in electronic format, which can be used to study language. There are corpora for all languages, even ones that compare different languages. A Corpus linguistic is a set of methods for assembling and analysing large samples of text, complementing manual discourse analysis. These large samples of text are: - Authentic - can be written or spoken - are typically created by researchers to be ‘representative’ of a language or a language variety Corpora are a database, and so are able to be reached using specific softwares. The corpus in register studies → the corpora in register studies helps identify a register’s typical conglomeration of linguistic features (intuition is NOT sufficient for doing this, not for the linguist). To have a more reliable idea of the ‘register idiosyncrasy’ of such features, a very large number of text belonging to a particular register would need to be analysed. To do this manually is one option, and indeed until recent years it was the only option – but not a very economical one, as it takes a VERY long time! Still, there are problems involved also in corpus analysis: - Corpus construction is a time-consuming activity too, - There are copyright issues, - Analysis cannot be entirely automated (eg. metaphors), So what we need is a corpus-assisted (rather than corpus-based, or corpus-driven) approach Register and translation Kuz and Teich talk about the notion of register as a basis for theorising and modelling translation, saying it’s been successful primarily because it offers a framework for a text analysis in cultural text. In their opinion the use of a quantitative corpus methods can aim at identify intralingual (= within the same language) but also interlanguage variation. For example: how register patterns differ in different languages. In this case, we need to focus on the construction of multilingual corpora, including texts from different languages, which can be compared. M. Manfredi also approaches translation studies from an SFL perspective. She shows how any theory of translation must be connected to its practice or it is but an empty abstraction. And, conversely , how any practice of translation must have a valid theoretical background or it won't be able to offer students more than pointlessly subjective tasks. She also explores the practice of translation through SFL- informed text analysis, including the translation of the literature text. Register vs genre Genre theory by Martin → Genre theory was put forward by Martin, with a view to theorising a variable that could be used to talk about a text’s social purpose. Martin wanted to “move beyond the clause” (the basic unit of analysis, but also of text creation, in Hallidayan SFL) and focus on text. Crucially, in Martin’s model, genre is “responsible for determining the phased unfolding of text”: what he calls generic structure. In his view, how a text is organised into consecutive rhetorical / discourse stages is the highly stable and so quasi-predictable outcome of genre. Such a hypothesis is easier to prove with reference to more closed registers, but far more difficult to demonstrate with reference to more open text-types. The image illustrates genre’s location at a ‘higher’ level than register. It is linked to the Context of Culture, rather than to the Context of Situation, which is reserved for register. So, register is connected to Context of Situation ; Genre is connected to Context of Culture and the starting point, for Martin, is always the text (that is always inside of a Context). Halliday, on the other hand, stars from the sentence - Fairy tales’ are good illustrations of the invention of a fictional context, but, in these other functions will be important too, and maybe even primary, since they usually contain a moral, focussing on persuading the addressee to some behaviour > “Once upon a time” invariably tells us a fairy tale will follow. The tale’s protagonist and material setting are immediately presented, firmly establishing its fictional context. The Emotive function→ it focuses on the extra-linguistic factor of Addresser, the speaker/writer of the text, and his/her opinions and attitudes. The emotive function is said to dominate, to be primary, when that intrusion, concerning the speaker’s self-expression, is overwhelmingly the focus of the communication. There are various linguistic mechanisms that help recognize this function, first among them being intensification through the reiteration of ‘love’ as VG or NG. The Conative function→ it orients towards the extra-linguistic factor of Addressee, the hearer/reader of the text, typically in an effort at stimulating some sort of response, either cognitive, or concretely active, behavioural. This function too is in evidence in the clause as exchange and its lexico-grammatical instantiations, in, for example, the imperative, the vocative, and the second person pronoun ‘you’. But even less explicit signs of an attempt to persuade, or convince, the addressee to do or think something (the monogloss, for instance) are included here as well. The Phatic function→ it focuses on the extra-linguistic factor of Contact. Language is used primarily to make and/or keep contact with the ‘other’. What we call ‘small talk’ is a good example of this often ritualised kind of communication. This is talk that is not overtly oriented towards giving or demanding information or ‘goods & services’, but mainly towards simply getting, and staying, ‘in touch’. The strictly rhetorical, 'phatic' purpose of 'keeping in touch' for the sake of keeping in touch is best illustrated by the 'uh huh' that lets the listener on the other end of a telephone connection know that we are still there and with him. Other examples that refer to small talk can be ‘nice weather we’re having’ or ‘well, we are here’. The meta-lingual (or meta-textual) function→ it focuses on the extra-linguistic factor of Code. It is this function which is primary in questions asked in FG classes (such as “What kind of Process is think?”). But this function plays an important role in everyday language too. Think of a typical retort to some comment that is taken to be offensive: “Now just what did you mean by that?!”. To this function of Jakobson’s, we have added the Meta-textual one, meaning a focus on text, rather than on discrete elements of the clause (ex. “the register of this text instance can be classified as didactic”). The Poetic function→ it focuses on the extra-linguistic factor of Message, in terms of its form, its sound and/or shape. An important point is that this function is to be found even outside poetry proper. As said when discussing closed/open registers, many different types of text use what are often called ‘poetic devices’ (e.g. alliteration, assonance, even rhythm and rhyme). Among them being persuasive discourse and in particular advertising and electoral speeches. On the other hand, as Jakobson points out, even poetry has overlapping functions, together with its main ‘poetic’ one. Some examples include: lyrical poetry, oriented towards the first person (which has an emotive function as well), the epic poem is also referential, and the conative function is in evidence in poetry exhorting to some sort of social or ethical ideal or action. But more needs to be said about this poetic function, as its distinguishing characteristic for Jakobson is what he has called grammatical parallelism, which merits investigation for the substantial effects the phenomenon has on the meanings of the message – in verbal art, but certainly not only. Grammatical parallelism (GP) Grammatical parallelism consists of the regular reiteration of equivalent units. Such as: morpheme – word – group – clause (ascending order). Sometimes there is parallelism of lexical units (i.e., of words). But GP is not always lexical, while it is always a question of structural parallelism. There are also other compositional hierarchies it can play a part, in e.g. in sound: phoneme – syllable – rhythm group – tone group. Or in spoken verse/ poetry: syllable – metric foot – line – stanza. For Jakobson, GP is the "empirical criterion of the poetic function". N.B. In the SFL model of text creation, GP is located in the clause as message: a structural cohesive device realising Textual meanings But it does much more than just enhancing cohesion. And most importantly, GP is at the same time Semantic Parallelism: a reiteration of meanings. Examples of reiteration (or parallelism) of Sounds - Alliteration: a repetition of consonants (especially at the beginning of closely placed words or stressed syllables). Ex. ‘Coca-Cola’, ‘PayPal’, ‘Dunkin’ Donuts’ - Assonance: a repetition of identical or related vowel sounds, especially in stressed syllables. Ex. ‘Strips of tinfoil winking like people’, ‘The Bee Meeting’ - Rhyme: a special case of both consonant & vowel repetition (= the identity of the last accented vowel and all sounds following it; can be ‘imperfect’ too) A special register - the special case of verbal art Verbal art, or the literature text, is a kind of language used in a particular social context, as all texts are BUT it is not simply a register like any other. This is because the context-language connection in verbal art is much more complex than it is for any other register. There are multiple contexts in play in verbal art: - the fictional context created by the text - The ‘real’ context of creation of the text (the language, world view and artistic conventions of the author situated in their time/place of writing), - The context of reception of the reader All of these impact on the text and its interpretation and require the analyst’s close attention. So, verbal art is ‘special’, and given this ‘specialness’ a ‘special’ theoretical model to deal with it is needed. Hasan’s ‘double-articulation’ descriptive and analytical model (in the image) Why do we need a second order of meaning? As Hasan explains it: “In all verbal art there exist 2 levels of semiosis: one that is the product of the use of natural language, itself a semiotic system; and the other which is the product of the artistic system through foregrounding and repatternings of the first-order meanings. The art of verbal art consists of the use of language in such a way that this second-order semiosis becomes possible.” So then, analysis of the literature text starts at the semiotic system of language, which is exactly the same as for any text of any other register. But then one goes beyond, to the second order of semiosis. This is the critical criterion of the literature text: the semiotic system of verbal art. Bernstein’s theory of coding orientations Coding orientation’s theory was developed by British sociologist Basil Bernstein in the 1970s. Addressing the following ‘facts of linguistic life’: - Some people can ‘switch’ easily from one register, and even one dialect, to another, while others cannot. - Not everyone has the same idea of what meanings, or ways of saying/ wordings, are appropriate in given Contexts of Situation Code = a ‘semiotic style’, a particular style that a speaker has when s/he makes meaning. Also crucial to understanding the dissimilar meaning potential that individuals are able to realise are the notions of individuation, repertoire and reservoir: ● Individuation = another ‘hierarchy’ besides realisation and instantiation. These hierarchies are key concepts for understanding our meaning-making resources ● Individuation = relates language use to the user, in terms of: - Repertoire: a language user’s individual subjectivity (set of strategies possessed by any one individual, the result of one’s individual history as a ‘meaner’) - Reservoir: socio-cultural subjectivity, or the total of the socioculturally shared sets of strategies and their potential for the community as a whole Individuation has to do with the relationship between the reservoir of shared cultural meaning potential and the single repertoires that individuals are able to actuate The link between code (semiotic style) and register → In Halliday’s model, code is what will determine register in the final analysis: when the CC activates the semantic meta-functions, which are then realised in and by a set of more or less typical lexicogrammatical options. It is a code that is regulating the whole process, so (important) code is ‘above’ register: Context (cultural and situational) ↕ Semantic (meanings) ↕ Lexico - grammar (wordings) ↕ Phonology/Graphology (sounding/writing) How the theory evolved → Bernstein began by focusing on education failure in the UK population: he noted that it was not distributed evenly. His research showed that it wasn’t distributed randomly either: it tended to correlate with social class and principally with the lower working-class. At the same time, he also observed that members of different social strata tended to use different codes within the very same social contexts.