Register, Field, Tenor, Mode (Spoken & Written Text)

Register

•         The configuration of semantic resources that the member of culture associates with a situation type. It is the meaning potential that is accessible in a given social context” (Martin, 1992, p. 495).

•         Register refers to context of situation.

•         Context of situation is organized metafunctionally into field, tenor, and mode.

Field

•         Field—the social action: ‘what is actually taking place’—refers to what is happening, to the nature of the social action that is taking place: what is it that the participants are engaged in, in which the language figures as some essential components (Martin, 1992, p 499).

•         In other words, field is one aspect of context of situation discussing what is happening, what is done by participant. It covers the nature of social action.

Tenor

•         Tenor—the role structure: ‘who is taking part’—refers to ‘who is taking part, to the nature of the participants, their statuses and roles: what kinds of role relationship obtain among the participants, including permanent and temporary relationships of one kind or another, both the types of speech role that they are taking on in the dialogue and the whole cluster of socially significant relationships in which they are involved (Martin, 1992, p. 499-500).

•         In short, tenor is one aspect of context of situation discussing who is taking part. It covers the nature of the participants, their statuses and roles.

Mode

•         Mode—the symbolic organization: ‘what role language is playing’—refers to what part language is playing, what is it that the participants are expecting the language to do for them in the situation: the symbolic organization of the text, the status that it has, and its function in the context, including the channel (is it spoken or written or some combination of the two?) and also the rhetorical mode, what is being achieved by the text in terms of such categories as persuasive, expository, didactic, and the like (Martin, 1992, p. 500).

•         In other words, mode is one aspect of context of situation discussing what part language is playing, what is expected by the participants through the language. It covers channel (spoken or written or combination of the two) and also the rhetorical mode.

Spoken text (language features)

•         Use of various kinds of tense in accordance with the situation of the use

•         The significant existence of participant (although in passive form)

•         Focus on human generic participant

•         Use of various kinds of sentences

•         Use of grammatical complexity

•         Use of complex sentence

Written text (language features)

•         Use of present tense (particularly Simple Present Tense) except recount

•         Use of most passive form; considers subject matter more important than participant

•         Use of generic participant, non-human

•         Use of declarative sentence

•         Use of lexical density (noun, verb, adjective, adverb); less grammatical words (preposition, conjunction, article)

•         Use of more simplex sentences than complex ones

Text 1

                        In this book we aim to study how to work out an empirical method by which we can analyze how people converse together. We hope to be able to recover what it is that people assume when they communicate by talking together. We shall focus on how speakers use speech to interact-that is, how they create and maintain what they define as the meaning of a social situation.

                        We hold basic theoretical opinion different from others who work in sociolinguistics. These theories means that when we analyze the speech of people who talk face-to-face, we treat the sorts of things that social anthropologists and sociologists refer to by such terms as role, status, social identities, and social relationships as symbols by which people communicate with each other.

Text 2

                        The aim of this study is to work out an empirical method of conversational analysis capable of recovering the social assumptions that underline the verbal communication process by focusing on actors’ use of speech to interact, i.e. to create and maintain a particular definition of a social situation.

                        The basic theoretical position that sets this work apart from other works in sociolinguistics is that, in the analysis of face-to-face encounters, the sorts of things that social anthropologists and sociologists refer to by such terms as role, status, social identities, and social relationship will be treated as communicative symbols.