WHAT A TEXT IS?

We can define A TEXT, in the simplest way by saying that it is language that is functional

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY FUNCTIONAL? ⇒ language that is doing some job in some context as
opposed to isolated words or sentences (e.g. isolated words that we might put on the blackboard are
functional if we use them in linguistic examples)

So any instance of living language that is playing some part in a context of situation, we
shall call A TEXT, and it may be either spoken or written

TEXT AS MEANING
The important thing about the nature of a text is that, although when we write it down it looks as
though it is made of words and sentences, it is really made of meanings. Of course, the meanings have
to be expressed or coded, in words and structures, just as these in turn have to be expressed over again
in sounds or in written symbols. ⇒ the meaning has to be coded in order to be communicated

So, we say that as thing itself, a text is essentially a semantic unit

Thus, from the linguistic point of view, we cannot simply treat a theory of text as an
extension of grammatical theory, and set up formal systems for deciding what a text is. It is
by no means easy to move from the formal definition of a sentence to the interpretation of
particular sentences of living language; and this problem is considerably greater in the case

of the text⇒ Because of its nature as a semantic entity, a text, more than other linguistic
units, has to be considered from 2 perspectives at once, both as a product and as a
process.
We need to see the text as product and the text as process and to keep both these aspects
in focus:
- The text is a product, in the sense that it is an output (something produced by a
person), something that can be recorded and studied, having a certain construction
that can be represented in systematic terms.
- The text is a process, in the sense of a continuous process of semantic choice, a
movement through the network of meaning potential, with each set of choices
constituting the environment for a further set.

So according to these 2 perspectives:

One method of describing a text is by exegesis (or explication de texte), which is a kind of
running commentary on the product that reveals something of its dynamic unfolding as a
process.
The problem for this approach is that you need to look beyond the words and structures so
as to interpret the text as a process in a way that relates it to the language as a whole. The
commentary embodies no conception of the linguistic system that lies behind that text; and
yet without the system, there would be no text. On the other hand, it is also necessary to
describe the system of the language in such a way that it is conceivable that people could
use it. Some attempts to devise a theory of language have done so in a way that makes it
almost inconceivable that anybody could have used that system to produce a text. The
problem for linguistics is to combine these 2 conceptions of the text (as a process and as a
product) and to relate both to the notion of the linguistic system that lies behind them.

The notion that Halliday and Hasan use is the social-semiotic perspective, where they
would see the text in its “process” aspect as an interactive event, a social exchange of
meanings. Text is a form of exchange; and the fundamental form of a text is that of dialogue,
of interaction between speakers. Not that dialogue is more important than other kinds of text;
but in the last resort, every kind of text in every language is meaningful because it can be
related to interaction among speakers, and ultimately everyday spontaneous conversation.
That is the kind of text where people exploit the full resources of language that they have;
the kind of situation in which changes in the system take place. The leading edge of
unconscious change and development in any language is typically to be found in its natural
conversational texts - in this context of talk as the interpersonal exchange of meanings.

SO WHAT REALLY IS A TEXT?

A text is an object in its own right (it may be a highly valued object, e.g. something that is
recognized as a great poem) and an instance (an instance of social meaning in a particular
context of situation). It is a product of its environment, a product of a continuous process of
choices in meaning that we can represent as multiple paths or passes through the networks
that constitute the linguistic system. But of course any general characterization of that kind is
useful only if it enables us to describe specific instances: we must be able to characterize
any text in such a way as to be able to relate it to this general concept.

So returning to the semiotic concept of meanings that are created by the social system - that
in a sense constitute the social system - which are exchanged by the members of a culture
in the form of text. The text is an instance of the process and product of social meaning in a
particular context of situation. Now the context of situation, the context in which the text
unfolds, is encapsulated in the text in a systematic relationship between the social
environment on the one hand, and the functional organization of language on the other.
If we treat both the text and the context as semiotic phenomena, as “modes of meaning”, we
can get from one to the other in a revealing way.

So, how can we characterize a text in its relation to its context of situation? or how do we get
from the situation to the text? This will then lead us to a consideration of how people make
predictions about the kinds of meaning that are being exchanged.
The three features of the Context of
Situation
● (def)The Context of Situation is the social context of a text or the “environment in
which meanings are being exchanged”.
● Halliday in his systemic functional linguistics theory proposes a description of
the framework which is composed of three elements or headings:field.tenor and
mode of discourse.
● 1)Field of Discourse: “refers to what is happening, to the nature of the social
interaction that is taking place”:
● what is it that the participants are engaged in and in which the language is
considered as some essential component?”
In the Field we consider : institutional setting, activities, subject matter.
2)Tenor of Discourse: “refers to who is taking part, to the nature of the
participants, their statuses(higher or lower status between the two people) and roles”:
- what kind of role relationships of one kind or another,
- both the type of speech role(messages in a conversation) that they are
taking on in the dialogue
- and the whole cluster(group of socially significant relationships
(coworkers, distant relatives, and acquaintances.)in which they are involved?”
● To sum up, in the tenor, we are interested in: the relations and roles
between participants.
3)Mode of Discourse: “refers to what part the language is playing, “what it is
that the participants are expecting the language to do for them in that situation”:
-the symbolic organisation of the text,(its genre)
- the status (higher or lower status between the two people )that it has, and
-its function in the context, including:
the channel (is it written or spoken or some combination of the two?)
and also the rhetorical mode( ie the different styles of writing) such as
persuasive, expository, didactic, etc
▪ In the Mode we consider : medium (e.g. written/spoken), and
the (symbolic) role of language in the situation.
example 1

Text 1.1 is a legal document that can be used when someone is buying or selling a house; it
An interpretation of its context of situation is the following.
CONTEXT OF SITUATION/Situational description:

1)Field:

● What is the topic?

● What do the participants want to achieve?
● Topic:codification of exchange of property(deed of transfer)
● I.E It is a document relating to a recognised social transaction, namely the exchange
of immovable property.

2)Tenor

● Who is speaking to whom?

● What is their relationship?
● It is a formulaic text used by a 'member' (individual) to address the 'collective'
(society) with reference to some specific instance.
3)MODE:
● WHAT part the language is playing?
● How is communication happening?
● How is coherence maintained?
● It is written in English in order to be filed away in somebody's filing
cabinet(ieSENIOR GOVERNMENT) as a document giving validity to the
transaction(ie SELL).
● Moreover,the rhetorical mode is performative in the sense that the text actually
constitutes or realises the actION in question. 3(In the performative function
weUSE Language tO DO THINGS TO PERFORM AN ACTION)
 ○

example 2(text 1.2)

Radio talk by the Bishop of Woolwich)

“The Christian should therefore take atheism seriously, not only so that he may be able
to answer it, but so that he himself may still be able to be a believer in the mid-twentieth
century. With this in mind, I would ask you to expose yourself to the three thrusts of
modern atheism. These are not so much three types of atheism—each is present in
varying degree in any representative type—so much as three motives which have
impelled men,particularly over the past hundred years, to question the God of their up-
bringing and ours. They may be represented by three summary statements: God is
intellectually superfluous; God is emotionally dispensible; God is morally intolerable. Let
us consider each of them in turn.”

1)field
● What is the topic?
● What do the participants want to achieve?
● The field is thus the maintenance of an institutionalised system of beliefs:
the nature of the “Christian” religion, and of people's attitudes towards it, at a
semi-technical level.

2)Tenor
● Who is speaking to whom?
● What is their relationship?
● The tenor is that of an authority to an audience. He is an authority in both
senses: he holds authority in the Church. as a bishop. and he is an authority
on religion, a theologian/ˌθiːəˈləʊdʒən/. He cannot see the audience, and does not
know them; but his relationship to them is institutionalised in the culture, as
that of pastor to flock.

3)Mode
● How is communication happening?
● The mode is that of a text that was written in order to be read aloud, as a public
act on the mass media: it was a monologue.Written English in which the text
itself was the whole of the relevant activity—nothing else significant was
happening. And it is a persuasive discussion, based on rational argument.

Example 3:
Short dialogue from the TV show Friends:

-Monica: What you guys don’t understand is, for us, kissing is as important
as any part of it.
-Joey: Yeah, right!…Y’serious?
-Phoebe: Oh, yeah!

1)Field of discourse(What is happening?)

● TOPIC:kissing
Some friends including Monica,Phoebe andJoey are in a coffee shop
discussing about Kissing
(realised lexically through ‘you guys’ and ‘kissing’ and
 grammatically through mental (‘understand’) and relational (‘is’) Processes)

2)Tenor of discourse(Who are taking part?):

● Monica,Phoebe and Joey who are equal status participants are exchanging
opinions (realised through the use of both statements and questions, and through
minor (‘yeah, right’)/ellipted (‘Y’serious) clauses and informal/shared lexis (‘guys’, ‘us’);
Why: Maintenance of long-term social bonds (‘you guys’, ‘for us’);

3)Mode of discourse(How is communication happening?):

● Spoken english dialogue(symbolic organization of the text)this is also an
embedded text, in the context of the ‘TV sit-com’, which affects the lexico-
grammatical choices in the text: it is written to be spoken, the turn-taking is
fast and without hesitation the ‘shared’ lexus is also easily understood by a
general audience, there are a limited number of topics of conversation, there are
no nicknames or inside jokes/knowledge,rhetorical mode:illustration or
exemplification bc the participants are clarifying the point that kissing is as
important as any part of it.
● Haliday is interested in the process of producing and understanding text in some
context of a situation, which he considers to be the most distinctive form of activity
in the life of a social man.