CARACTERISTICAS DE MODULOS DETALLES

The most significant question is: how can we interpret the meaning of silence in conversation? The current study adopts Halliday’s notion of the context of situation as a theoretical framework. The context of situation comprises the culture and the social context in which the addressee anticipates what the addresser is going to say (Halliday, 1978, p.110). Halliday and Hassan (1985, p. 12) suggest three features to interpret the social context of a text, the environment in which meanings are being exchanged: first, the Field of discourse, what is happening? Second, Tenor, who are taking part, the participants, their status and role, and the type of the relationship obtain among them, such as permanent and temporary relationships. Third, Mode of discourse, what part of language is playing, what do the participants expect the language to do for them in that situation? And Aspects of the channel of communication, for example: monologic, dialogue, spoken and written (Halliday & Hassan, 1985, p.12).

Halliday and Hassan (1985) are based on Malinowski’s notion of context of situation. Malinowski was an anthropologist who conducted his study in-group of islands of the south of the Pacific known as the Trobriand Islands, whose populations live by fishing and planting crops. The problem, which he had when he came back, was how to translate the situations of the texts, which he wrote about those people, into English. He offered an open translation to these texts, but this was insufficient, because it neglected the context in which it was said. In 1923, Malinowski created the term context of situation which is the environment of the text; he also introduced the concept of context of culture. Halliday and Hassan (1985, p. 8) indicate that language can be understood in its context of situation for every society.

40

Halliday and Hassan (1985, p. 8) are based on Firth’s (1935) notion, which in the function of linguistics is the study of meaning. Firth found that Malinowski’s notion of the context of situation was inadequate for the aim of linguistic theory, since Malinowski concentrated on specific context. Firth’s description of the context of situation as the one that consists of: ‘(1) the participants, (2) the action of the participants-verbal and non-verbal, (3) other relevant features of the situation: the surrounding objects and events,(4) the effects of verbal action, what changes were brought about by what the participants in the situation had to say’ (Halliday & Hassan,1985, p.8). Halliday and Hassan (1985, p. 10) suggest that the most important question for linguists is: How do participants make predictions of what will be said in an interaction? The answer is embedded in the context of situation, because the participants have enough knowledge of the meaning of what has been said and the meanings that will be communicated.

Halliday and Hassan (1985, p. 10) assert that, to understand the context of situation, it is essential to be aware of the text. Text is the language, which is functional. A text is therefore not only a group of words and sentences but also it is the essence of meanings. In other words, a text is a semantic unit. A text can also be

a product in the sense that it is an output, something that can be recorded and studied and have a certain construction that can be represented in systematic terms. It is a process in the sense that 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 (Halliday& Hassan,1985,p.10).

Based on the social semiotic notion, Halliday and Hassan (1985, p. 11) consider the text in its process as an interactive event and a social exchange of meanings. The basic form of a text is the interactional dialogue between speakers. Any type of text is meaningful, because it is an interaction between interlocutors and an everyday spontaneous conversation. The text is an example of ‘the process and product of social meaning in a particular context of situation’ (Halliday & Hassan, 1985, p.11). The context of situation in which the text reveals is enclosed in the text through ‘a systematic relationship between the social environment’ and ‘the functional organization of language’.

There is a strong relationship between language and context, as language is a string of written or spoken sentences that communicate meaning in a certain context. When the language is taken out of its context, it can be ambiguous (Eggins, 2004, p.8). This is applicable to silence,

41

since it cannot be divorced from its context. There is therefore a strong relationship between silence and context, because it is part of that context. Once it divorced from its context, it can lead to ambiguity. As a result, it is crucial to explicate the relationship between silence and context, since this study assumes that silence conveys meaning in the same way as speech words do. What is applicable to language, therefore, may also be applicable to silence, as speech and silence are two channels of communication.

Along with the context of situation, this study applies Sacks et al (1974).The following example explains the notion of context of situation. A and B are acquaintances and they are invited to a party.

A: FPPThe meat is delicious, isn’t it?

B: SPP_{... (silence)}

A: FPP_{What is wrong with you?}

B: SPP_{You know … (silence) I am … (silence) vegetarian. (Verbal and silence response)} A:Post Exp_{ Oh! I am sorry for that.}

A makes an initiation (The meat is delicious, isn’t it?); B gives a silent response (... (silence) but … (silence)). After that B again makes an initiation (What is wrong with you?), therefore B makes a response which contains silence (You know … (silence) I am … (silence) vegetarian). Finally, A makes an evaluation to B’s which is a positive response. To interpret the meaning of silence, we should first understand the elements of context of situation: first, Field, what is happening? A and B are at a party where the food is served and the food is meat. Second, Tenor, A and B are acquaintances, not close friends; there is no intimacy and rapport between them, because A does not know that B is a vegetarian. B is also embarrassed to tell A that s/he is a vegetarian. Finally, the mode of the discourse is spoken and a dyadic channel of communication is informative.

To conclude, silence in this conversation is functional, because it has a purpose; the semantic meaning is that B is embarrassed or feels too shy to tell A that s/he is a vegetarian. Silence also can be only interpreted within a social context i.e. it has a social function that is practised in this context specifically to convey a semantic meaning, which is embarrassment. Finally, silence has a semiotic function since its interpretation provides the listener with some interpretations, such as embarrassment, shyness, disgust, dislike, and hesitation.

42