Features of Online Discourse
2007-07-11 10:37 | 06. Characteristics of Web Texts
Halliday & Hasan (1989) provide a useful approach derived from the field of discourse analysis that can contribute to understand the context of situation in which a text shall function. Their simple conceptual framework of three headings serves “to interpret the social context of a text, the environment in which meanings are being exchanged” ( Halliday & Hasan 1989, p 12). I consider knowing this environment as essential for the creation of Web texts in general.
The Field of Discourse – What Is Happening
The first concept introduced by Halliday & Hasan (1989) is named the ‘field of discourse’. According to the authors, the field of discourse “refers to what is happening, to the nature of the social action” which is to take place ( Halliday & Hasan 1989, p 12). According to my motives, the major fields of discourse are advertising products and services, informing about new projects and references, or promoting anything that may be of public interest in order to either find new customers or business partners. In short, the field is marketing – the social and managerial processes by which goods or services are delivered to customers in order to fulfil their needs for sustainable benefits.
Tenor of Discourse – Statuses and Roles
The second concept that serves to describe the context of a text is the ‘tenor of discourse’. This feature “refers to who is taking part, to the nature of the participants, their statuses and roles” ( Halliday & Hasan 1989, p 12). As it is always the case in communication via static texts on Web pages, there is no face to face communication between the publisher and the visitors of his Web site; he does not know them from personal contact (except those visitors that are already customers).
The relationship between the author, who is a salesman in e-commerce, and potential customers is somewhat neutral on the Web. Certainly, an e-commerce company wants the visitor’s money, and the visitor may also want to buy their products. But if he would not have any interest in the company’s portfolio, the situation would be similar to rummaging about a store but being free to leave at any time. Communication is welcome, but not a must.
Nevertheless, when being aware of that particular tenor of discourse, there is a chance to form a context in which the user can adopt the role of a costumer (or any other role that is desired). This can be reached by providing the pieces of information in the texts that would usually be relevant for a costumer, such as price information, maybe a remark on discount opportunities, or the provider’s references. In a different context, say in online dating business (a field that I consider e-commerce, too), one could also make the visitor adopt the role of a member, a ‘buddy’ in a group of love-seeking singles, not just offering the role of one of the many anonymous Internet users. It is all about the forms of address, politeness and convenience, giving the visitors what they expect, without excluding those who just came in for another reason.
Mode of Discourse – The Part of the Language
The third and last concept is named the ‘mode of discourse’. Halliday & Hasan (1989, p 12) explain that this “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”. Accordingly, an author can reflect on several aspects.
The language of the Web texts that we intend to produce may mostly be of an influential, say, convincing tone. People shall be persuaded to spend money. Moreover, one can clearly state that communication through Web texts is a ‘public act’, as these texts are written for the mass media. This also means that, on a first glimpse, potential customers may not consider these texts relevant for them. They will have to decide after reading the text whether the content has been interesting enough to follow a given text link, or to leave the Web site. Authors should keep that in mind.
It is possible to shorten this process of getting the visitor’s attention by e.g. appealing on the user’s knowledge of the formal organisation of the text. Web texts do not appear individualised; there is always a headline, a structure, certain highlights, maybe even a note of the date the text has been published. Consequently, the readers might at least be able to identify the newness or the complexity of the information given, as they might have an idea of a newspaper article or – in contrast to that – a catalogue page with product details. This suggestion refers to the concept of ‘intertextuality’, being one of the ‘seven standards of textuality’ that De Beaugrande & Dressler (1981) have formulated. (Further details shall be given with a later posting. For the time being, see also Huber 2003).
In conclusion, Halliday & Hasan’s concepts of the field, tenor, and mode of discourse represent some useful guidelines for Web authors to become conscious of the context of situation that must be reflected in a particular text.
Published by Christian Kuhn
Comments
No comments.
Post a comment
Commenting is closed for this article.
Favourite Web writing resources
Recommended surfing
Categories
- 01. Meta (4)
- 02. Internet Usage (4)
- 03. Literature (3)
- 04. Terminology (5)
- 05. E-Commerce (2)
- 06. Characteristics of Web Texts (10)
- 07. Human Factors (3)
- 08. Writing for the Web (7)