Introduction

When the study of meaning became a linguistic discipline, the main interest of semanticists was in
the technical level of language and the major focus was represented by the single word. A different
view of the relationship between language and meaning was provided by Malinowski (1923) at the
beginning of the 20th century. The meaning of language was interpreted in terms of context of
culture and context of situation Malinowski’s theories influenced linguists such as Firth (1957) and
Halliday (1985) and language became to be considered meaningful only if considered within the
language events in which it is used. For this reason, language started to be analysed only in
authentic contexts: the focus of interest is not the single word any more but the meaningful relations
words enter into with the other words around them.
Constraints on language are operated by the broader context of culture but also by the topic and the
participants of a language event, that is to say the context of situation. Further constraints are to be
found in the linguistic environment of a word: every time we choose a word or a phrase we are
limited by the phraseological tendency of language. Added to this, the structure we give to our
message is also a meaningful choice: what is placed in the initial position of a clause or at the end of
it are constrained by the final aim of our message.

Context and co-text

Words do not occur in isolation. The words of a text are surrounded by their linguistic environment,
called co-text; the text takes place in a broader environment, called context. Both co-text and
context are of utmost importance in the identification of the meaning of a text.
➤ex. the word order in the following sentence takes its meaning from its co-text, that is to say from
the words that follow and precede:
Your order will be processed within 3/4 days after your request is submitted.
Items such as processed, request, and submitted contribute to the meaning of order that, in this
case, refers to a request for a product to be delivered to you.
Furthermore, the linguistic co-text of order allows us to understand what is going on, that is to say it
helps us make inferences on the broader event where the sentence takes place. It can be clearly
understood that this sentence has been uttered or written within an event whose topic is a
commercial transaction, and where the participants are the customer and the seller. Furthermore, the
role language is playing in this speech event can be analysed in terms of medium which, in this case,
is written (probably an e-mail or a letter) and in terms of rhetorical function which is descriptive.

The topic, the participants and the medium of an event constitute what has been called by Halliday
context of situation.
A different linguistic co-text of order would suggest a different context of situation as in the following
example:
➤Excuse me, can we order, please?
Excuse me, can and please suggest that the linguistic event is probably taking place in a restaurant
where some customers (the participants) are ordering their meal (the topic) to the waiter (the
participant). In this case the medium is spoken.

However, there are also cases where the context helps us disambiguate the meaning of a
sentence:
➤ex. She is a baby.
This sentence may refer either to a baby or to an adult who looks or acts as a baby. The two
contexts and co-texts will help us understand the meaning of the following sentences:
❏ Introduce your child to books when she is a baby.
❏ She shouldn’t have a baby because she is a baby herself.
 A theoretical overview
A theory of context was first developed by the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski. The influence
of Malinowski is visible in the theories of many scholars, particularly in those of J.R. Firth, one of his
colleagues at London University and of Halliday who follows both Malinowski’s and Firth’s ideas in the
development of his theory on the context of situation.

Malinowski and the theory of context

Bronisław Malinowski (he was an anthropologist, he was the first who coined the ‘context of culture’)
carried out an ethnographic field work in the Trobriand Islands. The inhabitants of those islands lived
by fishing and gardening and spoke the Kiriwininan language. The first problem he had to face was
how to translate the texts in Kiriwinian he had taken down in discussion with the Trobrianders, in
order to make them accessible to the British culture. These texts were the product of a culture which
was extremely different from the Western culture, for this reason a free translation would have not
helped Western people to understand them. He argues that instead of translating, of inserting simply
an English word for a native one, we are faced by a long and not altogether simple process of
describing wide fields of custom, of special psychology and of tribal organisation which correspond to
one term or another. We see that linguistic analysis inevitably leads us into the study of all subjects
covered by Ethnographic field-work.
For this reason, he decided to add an extended commentary to the translated text, which “placed the
text in its living environment”. Malinowski coined a new term which identifies the total environment,
including the verbal environment and the situation in which the text was produced: the context of
situation.
Malinowski understood that a text written by these people into this language could not be understood
by any foreigners or by people living outside this society even if translated into their own languages
because each message brought more meanings than those expressed through the words, meanings
that could only be understood if accompanied by the situation. Thus, Malinowski introduced the
notion of context of situation, meaning by this the environment of the text.

In his ethnographic treatise “Argonauts of the Western Pacific”, Malinowski identifies three main
aspects of social life that he believed the ethnographer must fit together into a unified description of
a given society: in every act of tribal life, there is, first, the routine prescribed by custom and
tradition, then there is the manner in which it is carried out, and lastly there is the commentary to it,
contained in the natives’ mind.
The strict relationship between language and culture is well explained by Malinowski in “The problem
of meaning in primitive languages”, where he argues that language can be explained only by
considering the broader context of situation: language is essentially rooted in the reality of the
culture, the tribal life and customs of the people, and it cannot be explained without constant
reference to these broader contexts of verbal utterance. An utterance becomes intelligible when it is
placed within its context of situation.
In order to illustrate the notion of context of situation, Malinowski described a typical Trobriand
fishing expedition: after the islanders had gone outside the lagoon into the open sea to fish, they had
to navigate a difficult course through the reefs to get back to the lagoon. For this reason, people on
the shore shouted instructions to the fishermen and the whole situation became a sort of competition
between the different canoes and groups of people. The language used in such situations was full of
technical terms, references to surroundings and indications of change, based on types of behaviour
well-known to the participants. The linguistic material used was, therefore, inextricably dependent
upon the course of the activity in which the utterances were embedded. It was language in action and
the message was clear only to those who knew what was going on. For this reason when he
accounted for these situations he realised that it was necessary to provide not only a description of
what was happening, the situation, but also of the total cultural background, because involved in any
kind of linguistic interaction, in any kind of conversational exchange, were not only the immediate
sights and sounds surrounding the event but also the whole cultural history behind the participants,
and behind the kind of practices they were engaging in, determining their significance for the culture,
whether practical or ritual. All these played a part in the interpretation of meaning.

Here, Halliday refers to the notion of the context of culture, which together with the context of
situation is necessary for the understanding of the text.
Furthermore, Malinowski stresses the importance of the function of words, arguing that their meaning
is not given by the physical properties of their referents but by the way they are used in a given
situation. Langendoen, who has provided a critical analysis of Malinowski’s works, says that
Malinowski had an important insight into the nature of the meaning of particular words, namely, that
their meaning is not given by the physical properties of their referents but rather by their function.
He insisted that all words are functionally defined, and not only all words but all possible utterances
in a language, and further that the meanings are so learned only by active experience and never by
explanation or paraphrase.

Qual è la natura del significato delle parole?

Menzionare significato denotativo e connotativo, il fatto che le parole hanno sempre una funzione e
che bisogna stare attenti a comprenderla per poi comprenderne a pieno il loro significato; la parola
va immaginata come una cipolla, ha vari strati: il significato denotativo, quello connotativo, il
context of culture, il context of situation,..., grazie a queste stratificazioni assume la forma che ha.

Malinowski also accounted for another use of language which was different from the pragmatic one:
the narrative use. The islanders used to gather around and to tell stories.
In this case there are two contexts of situation:
● the situation of the moment of narration (tutti seduti intorno al fuoco);
● the situation created by the stories themselves (creato dalle storie stesse che erano di
insegnamento alle nuove generazioni).
Langendoen claims that the meaning of narrative has nothing to do with the context of situation of
the moment of narration. On the other hand, Malinowski says that the words of a tale are significant
because of previous experience of the listeners; and their meaning depends on the context of the
situation referred to.
➤ex. stories about great famines in the past and how people reacted all together to overcome it,
were told during that part of the year when food was hardly available. So, the context of situation of
the moment of narration was somewhat relevant because of a direct relation between the narrative
and the immediate surrounding.

Meaning depends on the context of culture. Main implication is that equivalent words and concepts
may have different meanings across languages and cultures, words that are similar may have
different meanings.

Firth and the context of situation

The influence of Malinowski’s view about the context of situation is also visible in the work of J.R.
Firth. He adopted Malinowski’s notion but in his linguistic theory the context of situation was the
whole cultural setting in which the speech act was embedded, more than the context of human
activity concurrent with, immediately preceding, and following the speech act.
In Firth’s view the context of situation is best used as a suitable schematic construct to apply to
language events and is a group of related categories at a different level from grammatical categories
but rather of the same abstract nature. The categories brought into relation by the context of
situation are:
A. The relevant features of participants: persons, personalities.
- The verbal action of the participants.
- The non-verbal action of the participants.
B. The relevant objects.
C. The effect of the verbal action.
These are all elements that according to Firth are important to understand the meaning of a situation,
of a communicative event.

Firth says that the context of situation is a convenient abstraction at the social level of analysis and
forms the basis of the hierarchy of techniques for the statements of meanings. The statement of
meaning cannot be achieved by one analysis at one level, in one fell swoop. Having made the first
abstraction and having treated the social process of speaking by applying the above-mentioned set of
categories grouped in the context of situation, descriptive linguistics then proceeds by a method
rather like the dispersion of light of mixed wavelengths into a spectrum.
The notion of context of situation for Firth is linked to the statement of meaning, since words do not
exist in isolation but have to be considered and analysed contextually and functionally.

According to Firth’s theories, the meaning of what is going on is clear when all these features are
analysed and considered together.
The importance of the context of situation in the identification of meaning is linked to another Firthian
tenet, that is to say the notions of personality and language which are considered by Firth as vectors
of the continuity of repetitions in the social process. Firth stresses the importance of studying
individuals, and not speaking masses, in their bundles of roles and personae. He says that there is
the element of habit, custom, tradition, the element of the past, and the element of innovation, of the
moment, in which the future is being born. When you speak you fuse these elements in verbal
creation, the outcome of your language and of your personality. He dismisses the Saussurean
dichotomies of langue and parole.

What Firth strongly believes in is that any social person in the multiplicity of roles he/she takes in
his/her life and in the multiplicity of contexts of situation he/she finds him/herself in, is not free to
say what s/he wants. We behave systematically since experienced language is universally systemic.
This reinforces the relevance of the context in the identification of the meaning of an utterance: since
the linguistic events and the roles we perform in given situations influence the language we use; each
utterance has to be considered in the context in which it is produced.

➤example of how we change our language according to the role we are performing: let us suppose
we realize that the overcrowded room we are in would need some fresh air.
A friend of ours is close to the window. We may verbalize our feeling this way:
It’s so hot in here! Open the window, please.
However, if we suppose we are in a public place (school, university, office, ...) and we want to ask for
permission to someone we do not know our request would sound as follows: Excuse me, would it be
possible to open the window, please? The room would need some fresh air.

➤Similarly, if tomorrow we have to do an exam, we will probably tell a friend

Domani devo fare un esame.
but to our teacher we would probably say Professoressa,
domani dovrei sostenere un esame.
The two phrases fare un esame/sostenere un esame have two different degrees of formality and are
used in different contexts of situation. Furthermore, the use of the conditional form for the verb
sostenere reinforces the formality of the sentence. These examples show the strong relationship
between the language we use and the role we perform in context.

➤The same difference can also be identified in English where to do an exam, to take an exam, and to
sit an exam have different levels of formality and, as a consequence, clearly reflect the statuses and
roles of the people participating in the verbal action.

This view of language also has important implications in the study of language: if language is
systemic, that is to say if a specific situation attracts a range of words and phrases we are very likely
to use, the linguist may identify scientifically the features of the repeated linguistic events and
classify them.

Halliday and the context of situation

As previously mentioned, Halliday takes up both Malinowski’s and Firth’s ideas. In order to describe
the importance of the context of situation in communication, he makes us think about the way in
which we communicate. He says that what is remarkable is how often people do understand each
other despite the noise with which we are continually surrounded. How do we explain the success
with which people communicate? The short answer is that we know what the other person is going to
say. We may be partly surprised; but the surprise will always be within the framework of something
that we knew was going to happen.
Successful interactions are possible because we make predictions based on the context of situation. It
provides a lot of information about the meanings that are being exchanged and that are likely to be
exchanged because each context of situation has a limited set of words and expressions that can be
used and of topics that can be talked about. For this reason, a text is “language that is functional”,
that is to say “language that is doing some job in some context”.
A text is constituted by a set of meanings that have a particular function in the language event: if I
put words one after the other and these words do not constitute a message, that cannot be
considered a text because it doesn’t have a message. The text depends on the context of situation
and the context of situation depends on the context of culture, so the context of culture is the
broader and wider context in which a text is produced, then we have the context of situation and
then the text. Context of situation and context of culture represent the extralinguistic level of the text
and the text represent the linguistic level of communication. The 2 contexts influence the text at the
linguistic level of communication.

This perspective also influences the definition of text, being for Halliday ‘any instance of living
language that is playing some part in a context of situation’. For this reason a text is a product, an
output, and a process, a movement through the network of meaning potential.
Halliday provides a taxonomy through which it is possible to define the context of situation of a text.
He says that the text is an instance of the process (exchange of meanings) and product of social
meaning (product of people living in a society, cannot be considered as isolated) in a particular
context of situation. Now the context of situation, the context in which the text unfolds, is
encapsulated in the text, not in a kind of piecemeal fashion, not at the other extreme in any
mechanical way, but through a systematic relationship between the social environment on the one
hand, and the functional organisation of language on the other. A text is a sort of combination of
social features and language together. The presence of the context of culture and of the context of
situation in which the text has been produced are visible in the way the concepts are verbalized and
organized, reported using language.
According to Halliday, language is the product of the society and the product of a culture and this is
visible in the way language is used to talk about different topics.

In order to show the systematic relationship existing between language and the social environment
he provides his own taxonomy of the context of situation:
1. the field of discourse, that is to say what is going on, the nature of the social action (what
we are talking about);
2. the tenor of discourse, which refers to the participants, their statuses and roles, their
permanent and temporary relationships 8formality and informality);
3. the mode of discourse, that is to say the role language is playing (oral or written mode,
written to be read live or not live: the grammar of an oral text will be different from the
grammar of a written text), the symbolic organisation of the text, its status, its function in
the context, the channel and the rhetorical mode; it is also important if I’m speaking to
persuade someone or if I’m speaking to inform someone it means we’ll use different types of
language.
Halliday argues that such an analysis of the context allows us to represent the system that lies behind
the unconscious process of producing and understanding texts in a context of situation.

OUR CONTEXT OF SITUATION:

- field (lezione di linguistica inglese)
- tenor (docenti e studenti, rapporto non di pier/pier ma expert/non-expert, mi aspetto
determinate caratteristiche del linguaggio: colloquialismi)
- mode (teledidattica, quella in presenza supporrebbe altri significati che così non si possono
scambiare: contatto visivo, atteggiamento, posizione sulla sedia; la teledidattica non
permette un adeguato scambio di significati; macrofunzione: informativa; funzione retorica:
instructional)
A queste tre caratteristiche è legato il concetto di registro.

The notion of context of situation is also strictly linked to the concept of register. It means that the
features of the context of situation somehow constrain the lexis and the expressions that can be
used.
In order to understand better the kind of restraints operated by the situation, we can consider the
definition of register provided by Halliday: a register is a semantic concept. It can be defined as a
configuration of meanings that are typically associated with a particular situational configuration of
field, mode and tenor. But since it is a configuration of meanings, a register must also, of course,
include the expressions, the lexico- grammatical and phonological features, that typically accompany
or REALISE these meanings.
We can imagine it as a box and in this box we have all these expressions, lexis, grammar,
phonological features that are usually used in a given context of situation and that are used to realise
the meanings which are exchanged in a context of situation.

Registers are varieties of language that are associated with different circumstances and purposes.
Comparison between registers can be made on many different levels. ➤ex. the most general
distinction can be made on the basis of mode: conversation is spoken, while fiction, newspaper,
and academic prose are written.

If we consider a more specific characteristic – the main communicative purpose – the registers fall
into three categories: conversation focuses on personal communication, fiction on pleasure reading,
and newspapers and academic prose share a more information purpose. However, even between
newspapers and academic prose there are differences: academic prose is more concerned with
building an argument than newspaper writing is. What is more, academic prose has a more
specialised audience than a newspaper, which is written with a wide audience in mind.
Registers differ greatly in their grammar usage, reflecting their different communication
circumstances. In other words, the circumstances of a register have a direct impact on which
grammar habits are common in the register.
➤ex. consider how pronouns and nouns are used in conversation and news. Conversation is
interactive as a form of personal communication. It is not surprising, then, that conversation shows a
frequent use of the first-person pronoun I and we, and the second-person pronoun you. In contrast,
newspaper writing is not directly interactive: it is not addressing to an individual reader, and it often
does not have a stated author. But it has a function of conveying general information of current
interest. Not surprisingly, in newspaper texts, first- and second-person pronouns are relatively rare.
Instead, proper nouns, referring to people, places, and institutions, are particularly common.

CONVERSATION FICTION NEWS ACAD

MODE spoken written written written

INTERACTIVE yes restricted to no no
NESS AND fictional dialogue
REAL-TIME
PRODUCTION
SHARED yes no no no
SITUATION (si
ha un uso più
frequente di
aggettivi,
avverbi e
espressioni
avverbiali)
MAIN personal pleasure reading information/ev argumentation
COMMUNICA communication aluation /explanation
TIVE
PURPOSE/CO
NTENT

AUDIENCE individual wide-public wide-public specialist

The identification of the three variables of the context of situation indicated by Halliday has different
implications in language use and consequently, in register.
The variable of the field of discourse, which refers to the topic of the language event, operates a
constraint on the lexis and expressions available for use.
Ulrych provides some examples:
➤absolve and acquit. Both mean assolvere in Italian. However, the first of these two verbs belong to
the set of lexis and expressions of a religious register and is likely to occur with words such as
confessional, priest, go in peace, let us pray. Conversely, acquit is used in the legal register and will
co-occur with items such as charge, court, I rest my case.
➤depression may co-occur with different items and may have different meanings depending on the
register in which it is included. In the language of medicine, it co-occurs with suffer from whereas in
the language of economics it is included in expressions such as periods of economic depression, and
in the language of meteorology it is qualified by weather.

Se consideriamo il registro dal punto di vista della tematica, la nozione di registro ce la immaginiamo
come tante scatole ciascuna contenenti degli oggetti, i quali sono le parole e le espressioni che
possiamo utilizzare in un determinato contesto in cui stiamo parlando di una determinata tematica;
queste scatole non sono a tenuta stagna perché ci possono essere scatole come quella del linguaggio
del turismo che va a pescare da diversi registri, quindi nel linguaggio del turismo posso utilizzare le
parole dell'architettura, le parole dello sport, le parole della cucina, le parole dell'economia, le parole
della natura, ma comunque tutte queste parole che prendo in prestito per parlare di turismo andranno
a costituire il registro turistico.
● words and expressions of the language of tourism: tourism discourse has a set of typical
words and expressions of that context of situation, all these expressions and words are in
common with other registers so all these boxes are examples of registers of different
contexts of situation;
● if I’m talking about architecture, I’ll take all the words and expressions of the language of
architecture;
● If I’m talking about sport, I’ll take all the words and expressions of the language of sports;
● ...

All these boxes represent different registers and registers are rips of words and expressions which are
typical of a context of situation.
Il registro può essere considerato come una configurazione di significati, un concetto semantico, una
specie di scatola in cui ci sono tutte le parole e le espressioni che possono essere utilizzate in un
determinato contesto, se sto parlando di architettura andrò a prendere le parole e le espressioni che
mi aiuteranno a esprimere i concetti relativi all’architettura dal campo semantico dell’architettura.
es. linguaggio del turismo: attinge a vari registri per quanto riguarda il ‘field’ (la tematica, tipologia di
parole e espressioni) ma ha anche un suo registro.
The variable of the tenor of discourse, referring to the participants, constrains the degree of formality
of a language event. Levels of formality can be formal, neutral, and informal.
➤ As already said above with the example of to do an exam and to sit an exam, formality depends on
the statuses of the participants.
➤May I borrow your pen and give me your pen clearly exemplify a different relationship between the
participants of the two language events. The first example has a more formal style and presupposes
that the participants do not know each other (or do not know each other well). In the second
example, the use of the imperative form and the absence of expressions such as please reveals the
high degree of familiarity between the interlocutors.
Se consideriamo la teoria di registro considerando i partecipanti e quindi il set di espressioni e di
parole che posso utilizzare in determinati contesti, ma comunque questo set di espressioni e di parole
va utilizzato attentamente in base a quelli che sono i partecipanti.
➤es. parlando di architettura io potrò usare un set di parole e di espressioni più formali oppure quelle
più informali in base ai partecipanti e allo status e ai ruoli che i partecipanti hanno nell’evento
comunicativo.

Nel box che contiene tutte le parole e le espressioni che posso utilizzare in un contesto la cui tematica
è la medicina o altro, comunque devo andare a prendere le espressioni di stile formale se la
conversazione che io sto traducendo o lo scambio comunicativo di cui mi sto occupando e tra esperto
e non esperto. Il registro comunque tiene conto di queste variabili del contesto situazionale.
Il registro indica tutte quelle espressioni che posso utilizzare quando parlo di qualcosa, è sia ‘field’ che
‘tenor’ (=which refers to the participants, their statuses and roles, their permanent and temporary
relationships)

Perché analizziamo il testo tenendo in considerazione FIELD, TENOR e MODE?

Cosa capiamo del testo se lo analizziamo attraverso la *taxonomy di Halliday?
Halliday says that the analysis of the text allows us to represent the system that lies behind the
unconscious process of producing and understanding texts in some context of situation.
It means that if we analyze a text by identifying the constituting features of the text, we understand
how the text is produced. Per capire effettivamente i significati che vengono scambiati in un evento
comunicativo bisogna sapere di che cosa si sta parlando, chi ne sta parlando e in che modo ne stanno
parlando, ruolo e intento. Perché è importante sapere quali sono i ruoli dei partecipanti ad un evento
comunicativo? Perché lo scambio comunicativo avviene in maniera diversa in base al rapporto che i
partecipanti hanno tra di loro, al di là della formalità/informalità che ha un testo, anche i significati
che vengono scambiati assumono delle connotazioni diverse in base al tipo di rapporto che i
partecipanti hanno tra loro.
The variable of the mode of discourse refers to the medium and the channel (written, spoken; e-mail,
article, essay, ...) chosen for the language used. The constraints operated on language by this
variable include the differences between spoken and written language and the format that different
genres should have. In English, contractions should not be used in written texts and a newspaper
article does not include the expression dear readers which, conversely, may represent the opening of
a letter or of an e-mail.
These examples all have the same channel (ciò che scelgo per comunicare, parole, gesti, segni;
scambio di messaggi attraverso le parole e non le lettere): phonic rather than graphic;
Medium (mezzo fisico con cui trasmetto il mio messaggio, il messaggio è trasmesso oralmente o no,
se è una trasmissione, un giornale, la radio,...): between the spoken and written, because the
discourse is prepared, it is not a conversation;
Rhetoric aim: addressee focused, conative/referential function (voglio insegnare qualcosa);

Dialect variation interacts with register variation. Dialects are varieties according to the identity of
speakers or writers – their geographic area, gender, socio-economic class, and so on. Dialect is less
important for grammatical purposes than register. From the grammatical point of view, dialect
differences are arbitrary, while register differences are functional, reflecting the way that grammar
varies according to communicative purposes.

LEXICAL WORD CLASSES ACROSS REGISTERS

Registers can be described in terms of their style by comparing their use of the lexical classes.
- Nouns and verbs are clearly the most common type of words overall;
- Conversation has a high density of verbs, unlike informative writing such as news and
academic prose, which has a high density of nouns;
- Adjectives are linked to nouns, because they most frequently modify nouns. So informative
writing, which has the highest density of nouns, also has the highest density of adjectives;
- Adverbs, on the other hand, are linked to verbs. They typically describe circumstances
relating to actions, processes, and states that are denoted by verbs. So conversation and
fiction writing, which have the highest density of verbs, also have the highest density of
adverbs.
FUNCTION WORD CLASSES IN USE

Function word classes, like lexical word classes, vary greatly in their frequency in different types of
English. Figures 2.2 and 2.3 show the way frequency varies between two very different registers of
English, conversation and academic prose. Notice especially the striking differences in frequency of
pronouns (high in conversation) and determiners (high in academic prose). Another difference is in
the frequency of adverbial particles: this is the least frequent function word class in both registers,
but it is much rarer in academic prose than in conversation.
It may be of use to know that: primary auxiliaries are be, have and do; determiners are definite and
indefinite articles, demonstratives, possessives, and quantifiers (some, any, ...), adverbial particles
are a small group of words with a core meaning of motion (about, across, along, around, aside, away,
back, by, down, forth, home, in, off, on, out, over, past, round, through, under, up), coordinators are
coordinating conjunctions, subordinators are subordinating conjunctions, modal auxiliaries are will,
can, shall, may, must, would, could, should, might.

Context of situation: some practical examples

Two texts will also be analysed according to the three variables of the context of situation, that is to
say field, tenor, and mode.

CONTEXTS ACROSS CULTURES AND LANGUAGES

The text which follows is the homepage of the Holmsdale Hotel’s website (available at
www.blackpoolhotel.com/holmsdalehotel.html), a hotel based in Blackpool.
British people will find reading and interpreting what is written in this text quite easy. However,
Italians may get a little bit confused, particularly reading those parts of the text where the presence
of children is questioned. The habit of not allowing children in some restaurants and pubs is quite
common in the UK and it is culturally accepted. In Italy and in other European countries children are
always accepted in these public places and parents do not usually go out without their children. The
text can, therefore, be interpreted only if its context of culture is considered.
Conversely, the following Italian text may sound bizarre to English people who do not understand the
need to add a detailed description of how a fine may be increased if the offence is carried out in the
presence of pregnant women, babies and children up to 12 years.
The British equivalent of this notice does not include any detailed description of further increases
in the fine due to the presence of certain categories of people, as visible in the notice
provided below:

Different cultures produce different texts which should be interpreted accordingly. This confirms
Malinowski’s theories according to which language cannot be explained without constant reference to
the broader contexts of verbal utterance.

CONTEXT ACROSS THE SAME LANGUAGE

Examples of Halliday’s context of situation and the notion of register are provided in the analysis of
the two texts reported below. As said above, the basic assumption is that the language used in texts
is strictly correlated to the features of the three variables (field, tenor, and mode).
Both texts chosen as examples talk about fractures, that is to say they have the same field of
discourse, the same topic. However, they are characterised by differences at the level of tenor and
mode.
Text 1 is an abstract of a scientific article published on a specialized journal and Text 2 is a message
posted to an open forum5

Text 1
Subtrochanteric femur fractures by Bedi A; Toan Le T
Abstract:
Subtrochanteric femur fractures have demanded special consideration in orthopaedic traumatology,
given the high rate of complications associated with their management. The intense concentration of
compression, tensile, and torsional stresses and decreased vascularity of the region has challenged
orthopaedists with problems of malunion, delayed union, and nonunion resulting from loss of fixation,
implant failure, and iatrogenic devascularization of the operative exposure. Only recently has a better
understanding of fracture biology, reduction techniques, and biomechanically improved implants
allowed for subtrochanteric fractures to be addressed with consistent success.

Text 2
Topic: Your worst injury
I've had an interesting life when it comes to broken bones. It seems like I can't go 5-6 years without
breaking something.
When I was in kindergarten/first grade, I was pushed off the top of a slide that was probably 10-15
feet up... when I hit the ground, my leg hit the support arm of the slide and it broke my thigh bone in
half. I was in the hospital for a month.
A few years later I broke my left arm playing tag of all things... not too bad… when I was in 9th
grade, I wrecked my 3-wheeler and shattered my ankle. I had 4 screws installed and 2 weeks of the
hospital.
My last major injury was in Dec 1999 when I ruptured my Achilles tendon in my right ankle playing
basketball and then I RERUPTURED it again in March 2000 on vacation in Mexico… Besides those 4
major accidents, I've had stitches in various places for different accidents. I even had a skill saw
accident when my parents were building their home. [...]

The two texts have the same topic (they both deal with fractures) but they show a number of
differences in terms of lexical density, tone, level of interaction, use of contracted forms, shared
knowledge.
Text one is about fractures and, being a scientific text, the tenor is constituted by the author and
his/her audience (mainly colleagues and experts). The mode, which, as already said, describes the
way language is being used in the speech interaction, including the medium (spoken, written, written
to be spoken, etc.), the channel (e-mail, letter, article, essay, ...) as well as the rhetorical mode
(expository, instructive, persuasive, etc.) is expressed through the written channel and its rhetorical
mode is mainly instructive. Similarly, text two is about fractures, but being a message posted to an
open forum, the tenor is constituted by the author and his/her audience constituted by the forum
community and websurfers. The language is written and the rhetorical mode is expository.
The important difference between the two texts lies in the tenor: the different statuses and roles of
the participants imply different levels of formalities and consequently a different use of language.
Text one is highly formal: a scientific article published in a scientific journal is addressed to an expert
audience. Text two is highly informal: a message posted to an open forum addressed to a big and
highly heterogeneous community. The expert-to-expert and non-expert-to-non–expert interactions
are visible in the linguistic choices. A table will help us to identify the main differences in terms of
lexical choice and tone:
Further differences are in the mode of the two texts such as the use of contractions (I've had an
interesting life; I can't go 5-6 years) which are absent in Text one; the use of the first person
pronoun (I was in kindergarten; I wrecked my 3-wheeler; I've had stitches) which is very rare in
scientific English where far more preferred choices are the third person pronoun, the passive form,
and a construction of the sentence which depersonalize the voice of the author by positing the object
of the sentence in subject position (Subtrochanteric femur fractures have demanded; The intense
concentration ...has challenged; Only recently has a better understanding ... allowed ...).

Conclusion
This chapter has described how the meaning of a text arises from its context of culture, its context of
situation, and from its co-text. This explains why texts, in order to be properly interpreted, should be
placed in their verbal and social living environment. The crucial relationship between text and context
is visible when the notion of register is considered. Each context of situation has its own set of words
and expressions available for use. These words do not acquire their meaning from the physical
properties of their referents but from their function in context, that is to say from the way they are
used in social and language events.
Context of culture, context of situation and co-text play a fundamental role in the process of
translation. Some concepts may exist in one culture but not in another. As shown above, the Child
free zone advertised by the British hotel would not have meaning in an Italian context of culture
where the linguistic equivalent Area libera dai bambini would not sound so positive and meaningful.
Baker provides the example of Cream Tea, which is not a the alla crema, as some Italian students
may think, but a British traditional afternoon meal consisting of tea and scones. This concept has no
equivalent in the Italian culture and translators should adapt it according to the new context of
culture and the context of situation.

In Chapter 3, the focus will be on co-text, collocation and phraseology. However, before moving to
the analysis of meaning by collocation, the next chapter will explore corpora (that is to say collections
of texts electronically stored) and the software which allow linguists to analyse language
systematically and classify repeated patterns of language.

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND LANGUAGE

In global advertising research, understanding the cultural values of consumers is of utmost
importance. Consumers are central together with their self, their personality, identity, image and
cultural values. Besides that, mental and social processes are also relevant factors to take into
account, that is to say how people think, learn, perceive and process information, and how people
relate to each other, including motivation and emotions. These processes affect advertising style and
appeal.
Cross-cultural advertising should therefore start from an analysis of the culture’s consequences for
the self and personality, mental and social processes, and how these influences global advertising
strategy. One of the ways to reach this aim is applying the theories of cultural models to advertising.
The manifestations of culture, which are defined ‘cultural dimensions’ by Hofstede, and which are
considered here are five and are: Power/Distance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity,
Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-/Short-term orientation.

1. Power distance (PD) is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of
organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed
unequally. Based on the level of expectation, this distance can be defined high or low. In
cultures with a high Power Distance there is a strong sense of social hierarchy and of social
status and power is centralized. Cultures with a low Power Distance do not have a
relationship of dependence on superiors and authorities but rather a relation of
interdependence. They all work together to solve problems and disputes and exchanges of
different points of view are more than appreciated. According to Hofstede’s survey, the UK
scores low on this dimension, more precisely 35 out of 100. This means that the British
society believes that inequalities amongst people should be minimized. As for Italy, the
survey has involved only northern Italy and if southern Italy were included, the PD score
would probably be higher than 50. Many studies have shown that the Italian culture tends to
be a high PD culture which considers social hierarchy and status as very important. Australia
scores low on this dimension (36 out of 100) as visible in business domains, where hierarchy
 is established for convenience, superiors are always accessible and managers rely on
individual employees and teams for their expertise. Information is shared frequently and is
informal, direct and participative. In advertising, luxury articles, some alcoholic beverages
and fashion items usually appeal to social status needs. The influence of this cultural
dimension on language is visible, for example, on a more or less dialogic style and formal or
informal style of communication. Low Power Distance cultures show a higher interaction in
language, which may be characterised for example by salutations and engagement markers
such as ‘you’ or ‘yours’, a use of Imperative forms and of questions which convey the
impression of a dialogue, a use of vague language, which is typical of conversations among
friends, exclamation and suspension marks which represent some features of spokeness.

2. The second cultural dimension is represented by the contrast between

Individualism/Collectivism (IDV/COLL) and reflects the degree to which individuals are
integrated into groups. In individualistic societies, everyone is expected to look after him or
her and his/her immediate family. These cultures are I-conscious and universalistic and tend
to assume that their values are valid for the whole world. Conversely, in collectivist cultures,
relationships among individuals are very strong and people tend to be integrated in strong
cohesive in-groups that look after themselves in exchange for loyalty. These cultures are we-
conscious and their identity is based on the system they belong to. The UK is among the
highest of the individualist scores (89 out of 100). For this reason, the British can be
considered highly individualist and private people. As for Italy, different tendencies between
the northern and the southern part of the country should be noticed: the score which
considers northern Italy is 76, but this dimension may vary in the south where the family
network and the group one belongs to are important social aspects, and rituals such as
weddings or Sunday lunches with the family are occasions that cannot be missed10. The
Australian culture scores 90 on this dimension and this translates into a loosely-knit society
in which the expectation is that people look after themselves and their immediate family. In
terms of language, individualist cultures adopt a more direct style of communication, placing
more emphasis on facts and concreteness; collectivist cultures tend to adopt a more indirect
style of communication, placing more emphasis on how things are said. The direct style of
individualist cultures may even sound offensive to members of collectivist cultures, for this
reason much care should be taken when dealing with communication across cultures with
different orientations. In advertising, this difference is reflected in the dichotomy persuasion
vs. trust: in individualistic cultures, persuasion has to be direct and get to the point fast; in
collectivistic cultures, a relationship of trust should be created first in order to sell a product.
This dimension can be combined with Hall’s patterns of culture, in particular the pattern
related to context. The concept of context explains cultural differences in terms of directness
of communication and information load. Different cultures have differing priorities with regard
to how much information needs to be made explicit in communication. In High Context
cultures, how something is said is more important than what is actually said and very little is
made explicit as part of the message. Conversely, in Low Context cultures explicit verbal
messages are more important than the intended meaning. Low-context communication
cultures demonstrate positive attitudes towards words, argumentation and rhetoric, whereas
High-context communication cultures tend to be characterized by symbolism or indirect
verbal expressions.
Hofstede suggests a correlation between collectivism and High Context in cultures (ibidem).
In collectivist cultures, information flows more easily among members of groups and there is
less need for explicit communication than in individualist cultures.

3. The third dimension identified by Hofstede is Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS/FEM): the
dominant values in a masculine society are achievement and success; the dominant values in
a feminine society are caring for others and quality of life. Masculine values are
assertiveness, competitiveness, stress on achievement, task orientation, and resolution of
conflict by confrontation. Feminine values are modesty, caring, conflict resolution through
compromise and negotiation.
The UK scores 66 on this dimension and can be considered a Masculine society, highly
success-oriented and driven. Italy is also a Masculine society with a score of 70. Success has
to be shown by acquiring status symbols (such as cars, houses, ...) and competition among
colleagues for making a career can be very strong. Australia scores 61 on this dimension.
 Although this score is lower than the other two, it can be assumed that this culture as well
has a Masculine society driven by competition, achievement and success.

4. The fourth dimension is Uncertainty Avoidance (UA), that is to say the extent to which
people feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid these situations. The
need for rules and formality to structure life is typical of cultures with high Uncertainty
Avoidance. Conversely, openness to change and innovation are typical of low Uncertainty
Avoidance cultures.
The UK has a very low score on this dimension (35 out of 100). This means that the British
are comfortable in ambiguous and unplanned situations. Italy has a high score on
Uncertainty Avoidance (75 out of 100) and this means that the Italian culture does not feel
comfortable with unknown situations. This is why formality is important and, for example, the
Italian penal and civil codes are very complicated and full of clauses and codicils13. The
Australian culture is characterised by an intermediate UA, scoring 51.
In terms of language, this dimension would imply a more or less prominent emphasis on the
linguistic realisation of concepts such as expectation for assurance, reflected in items
expressing certainty, on value conservatism and traditional beliefs, expressed by items
referring to history and tradition, and on health reflected in the attitude towards relaxation or
activity or in the importance of purity, for example in food and drink.

5. The fifth and last dimension analysed here is Long-Term Orientation (LTO) vs. Short-
Term Orientation (STO), which corresponds to the extent to which a society exhibits a
pragmatic future-oriented perspective rather than a conventional historic or short-term point
of view. Characteristics of LTO cultures are persistence, ordering relationships by status,
thrift, having a sense of shame; features of STO cultures are: respect for tradition, personal
steadiness and stability, reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts.
The UK scores 51 on this dimension and, for this reason, a dominant preference cannot be
determined. According to Hofstede’s survey, Italy tends to be a long-term orientation culture
with a score of 61. In this perspective, Italy is described as a very pragmatic culture in which
people believe that truth depends very much on the situation and are able to adapt traditions
to changed conditions. Australia scores 21 on this dimension and, for this reason, is
considered a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with
establishing the absolute Truth and exhibit great respect for traditions.

Context of culture
WHAT IS CULTURE?
Culture is not visible as a
product, but is internal,
collective and is acquired rather
than learned (at home).
Acquisition is the natural,
unconscious learning of
language, behaviour, values and
belief through informal watching
and hearing. Learning, on the
other hand, is formal and is
consciously taught.
ex. BEING LATE -> it depends
on culture, for our culture ‘being
late’ could mean to be 1 hour
late, for other cultures could mean to be just 10 mins late, usanza dei meridionali di arrivare tardi e
mai prima dell'orario stabilito.

ICEBERG THEORY (HALL)

- importance of time (italy: give great importance to the past and traditions);
- views on raising children - social status (in Italy social status is less important than it is in the
UK);
- Language;
- titles (Mr. Mrs.) - food (ex. caffè)
- reply to complains (ex. Italy: no personal reference; china: personal reference, ask for
forgiveness);
- clothes;
- geographical feature: can normally be distinguished from other cultural terms in that they are
usually value-free-politically and commercially (winds, plains, hills, plateaux, pampas); the target
audience’s likely familiarity with the cultural words should guide the translator’s choices. Certain
ecological features like the seasons, rain, hills, may not be understood in translation. If your
country doesn’t have ‘tornado’ you will have to present a similar concept of a ‘strong wind’ to
compensate for the lexical loss (meadows = praterie, NO).

CULTURAL ORIENTATION
Geert Hofstede ( https://geerthofstede.com/ ) ha fatto un'indagine su un personale di una grande
azienda di computer, dalle domande che aveva posto notò che dipendenti provenienti dalle stesse
nazioni rispondevamo in modo simile alle stesse domande. Si parla di tendenze e non elementi ben
definiti.
La cultura è tutto ciò che è intorno agli scambi comunicativi (musica, immagini,...).

*(spunto per tesi: come vengono pubblicizzati i prodotti locali nella nostra regione)

CULTURAL CLASSIFICATION
The Lewis Model is rooted in Edward T Hall’s concepts of monochronic (attending to one thing at a
time) and polychronic (attending to multiple things at the same time) cultures. Richard Lewis
expanded these concepts to the broader ones of linear-active and multi-active, then added the new
concept of reactive, following a period immersed in
Japanese culture.
● linear-active: linear-active people tend to be task-oriented, highly organised planners who
complete action-chains by doing one thing at a time, with a linear agenda. They prefer direct
discussion, sticking to facts and figures from reliable, written sources. Speech is for
information exchange and they talk and listen in equal proportions. They are truthful rather
than diplomatic and do not fear confrontation, sticking to logic rather than emotions. They
partly conceal feelings and value a certain amount of privacy. They are results-oriented and
like to move quickly forward, compromising when necessary to achieve a deal (ex. tedeschi,
svizzeri);
● multi-active: multi-active people are talkative, impulsive types who attach great importance
to feelings, relationships and people-orientation. They like to do many things at the same
time and tend to feel confined by agendas. Conversation is roundabout and animated and
they try to speak and listen at the same time. Interruptions are frequent, pauses in
conversation are few. Multi-active cultures are uncomfortable with silence and seldom permit
or experience it (ex. italiani, latino americani, arabi);
● reactive: reactive or listening cultures rarely initiate action or discussion, preferring first to
listen to and establish the other’s position, then react to it and formulate their own.Reactive
cultures listen before they leap. They are the world’s best listeners inasmuch as they
concentrate on what the speaker is saying, do not let their minds wander (ex. cinesi,
giapponesi, finlandesi).

*‘want’ e ‘must’ sono due modali molto forti che vanno utilizzati con cautela: usare ‘want’ quando
voglio che qualcuno faccia qualcosa è molto scortese, usarlo in un discorso formale è anche stavolta
scortese, va utilizzato per esprimere la propria volontà di fare o volere qualcosa; ‘must’ non è usato
per dare consigli (si usa ‘should’, e anche per dare opinioni), ‘must’ è un dovere, qualcosa di davvero
necessario. L’usare i modali in modo sbagliato da parte degli italiani è spesso vista come una
scortesia da parte degli inglesi.

LANGUAGE AS A LINGUISTIC PRODUCT

The linguistic product of a specific cultural group has to be interpreted taking into account the context
of culture, that is to say the setting, the scene where an action or a text has been ‘produced’ and the
context of situation, that is to say who has produced what and how.
You can’t understand the meaning of a text if you do not consider the original culture of the text and
its features: the author, the audience (large or restricted), the topic, why was the text produced
(communicative aim); all these features contribute to the meaning of the text.

What are the features that contribute to the meaning of the text?
Context of culture, context of situation, culture which has produced the text, the topic of the text, the
participants to the text and the communicative aim).
With ‘text’ we talk about not just a written text but, in general, is a communicative event where
meanings are exchanged, a text can also be a spoken communicative event and not only a written
communicative event.
TEXT: something that has been produced for a certain aim; we can talk about ‘communication’ only if
what we say and the meanings that we exchange have a communicative aim.